1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 ANDREW RACHAL, Case No. 17-cv-01254-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

10 ROBERT W. FOX, Re: Dkt. No. 22 11 Defendant. 12

13 14 Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2254. The petition was stayed so petitioner could exhaust his claims in state court. 16 The stay has been lifted and petitioner has filed an amended petition. 17 DISCUSSION 18 STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 20 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 21 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges,

(1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet 23 heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott,

(1994). An 24 application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody 25 pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to 26 the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules 27 Governing § 2254 Cases,

. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the 1 Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine,

(1st Cir. 2 1970)). 3 LEGAL CLAIMS 4 As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) there was a lack of 5 sufficient evidence to convict him of first degree murder; (2) the trial court violated his 6 right to a jury trial by improperly dismissing a juror; and (3) the trial court erred by failing 7 to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense; (4) the trial court erred by failing to 8 properly instruct the jury on the issue of self-defense; (5) the prosecution committed 9 misconduct; (6) his counsel’s ineffective representation was a violation of his 10 constitutional right to counsel; (7) the trial court improperly admitted evidence regarding 11 petitioner’s ex-girlfriend; (8) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to 12 present all of the facts relevant to self-defense and to disprove the prosecution’s theory of 13 motive; (9) false testimony was allowed to be presented at trial; (10) trial counsel’s 14 decision to forgo manslaughter instructions was not based on a rational and strategic 15 decision; and (11) cumulative constitutional errors caused petitioner undue prejudice. 16 Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to require a response. 17 CONCLUSION 18 1. The clerk shall serve by electronic mail a copy of this order on the Attorney 19 General of the State of California at [email protected]. The clerk also 20 shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner by regular mail. Respondent can view the 21 petition on the electronic docket (Docket No. 22). 22 2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty (60) 23 days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the 24 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus 25 should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a 26 copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that 27 are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 1 If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse 2 with the court and serving it on respondent within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the 3 answer. 4 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of 5 an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules 6 Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, it is due sixty (60) 7 days from the date this order is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the 8 Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty 9 (30) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on 10 petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 11 4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on 12 respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner 13 must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s 14 orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for 15 failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v.

F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: September 29, 2021 19 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 20 United States District Judge

21

22 23 24 25 26 27