Opinion
Case No. 18-cv-02610-JD
07-19-2018
ROBERT ANTHONY MARTINELLI, Petitioner, v. ROBERT NEUSCHMID, Respondent.
ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 5, 6
Robert Martinelli, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County, which is in this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
BACKGROUND
Petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial of residential burglary and attempted carjacking. People v. Martinelli, No. A151339, 2018 WL 330130, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2018). The jury also found that petitioner suffered two prior strike convictions. Id. Petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life. Id. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. Id. The California Supreme Court denied review. Petition at 26.
DISCUSSION
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must "specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground." Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. "'[N]otice' pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a 'real possibility of constitutional error.'" Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).
LEGAL CLAIMS
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) the accusatory pleading in his case was unsworn in violation of state law; therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction and his conviction is void; and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present arguments regarding the accusatory pleading.
Petitioner's first claim alleges a violation of state law and the state constitution. Petitioner has not presented a federal claim and the state court already denied this claim. This claim is dismissed. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (explaining that "it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions"). Liberally construed, his second claim alleging that trial counsel was ineffective is sufficient to require a response.
CONCLUSION
1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 5, 6) is GRANTED. The first claim in the petition is DISMISSED.
2. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order and the petition and all attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within fifty-six (56) days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the answer.
4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the date this order is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.
5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent's counsel. Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 19, 2018
/s/_________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge ROBERT ANTHONY MARTINELLI, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT NEUSCHMID, Defendant.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 19, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Robert Anthony Martinelli ID: BC-9943
C.S.P. Solano A2-229 L
2100 Peabody Road
P.O. Box 4000
Vacaville, CA 95696 Dated: July 19, 2018
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
By:/s/_________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO