Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WADE v. FOULK, 13-cv-4636-TEH. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150708a24 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2015
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THELTON E. HENDERSON , District Judge . Petitioner Clenard Cebron Wade, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The Court previously found that nine claims were sufficient to require a response and ordered Respondent to show cause. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims and some of the claims failed to raise a federal constitutional issue.
More

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner Clenard Cebron Wade, a state prisoner, proceeds with a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court previously found that nine claims were sufficient to require a response and ordered Respondent to show cause. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims and some of the claims failed to raise a federal constitutional issue.

As noted in the prior Court order several claims were dismissed and the Court found that three claims should continue: one, two and nine. The Court also found that claim seven was unexhausted but Petitioner could file a motion to stay to exhaust it or strike the claim. Petitioner had filed a response indicating his desire to strike claim seven and continue with the other three claims. Docket No. 26.

Therefore, the case proceeds on the following three claims: (1) the trial court denied Petitioner his right to represent himself; (2) the trial court gave erroneous jury instructions with respect to battery with serious bodily injury that violated due process; and (3)1 juror misconduct and bias.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty-three (63) 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.

2. In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file a Motion to Dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition within thirty-five (35) 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.

3. 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 also must keep the Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate document entitled "Notice of Change of Address."

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Formerly claim nine.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer