Singh v. Warden, San Quentin Prison

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 15, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-06054
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JASJIT SINGH, Case No. 20-cv-06054-JD

8 Petitioner, ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO 9 v. SHOW CAUSE

10 WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN PRISON, Respondent. 11

12 13 Jasjit Singh, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 14 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in San Francisco County, which is in this district, so 15 venue is proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 16 BACKGROUND 17 Petitioner was convicted by a jury of forcible rape, rape of an intoxicated person, lewd 18 conduct with a child under 16 and multiple other sexual assault charges. People v. Singh, No. 19 A149670, 2019 WL 288234, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2019). He was sentenced to 14 years in 20 state prison. Id. at 3. The California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction. Id. at 1. The 21 California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. Petition at 3. 22 DISCUSSION 23 STANDARD OF REVIEW 24 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 25 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 26 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 27 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 1 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 2 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 3 each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 4 pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 5 of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 6 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 7 LEGAL CLAIMS 8 As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his federal rights were 9 violated when the trial court dismissed a juror who was a holdout for acquittal; and (2) the trial 10 court erred when it denied his motion for a new trial. 11 With respect to the second claim, petitioner argues that the trial court violated state law in 12 denying his motion for a new trial. Petitioner presents no argument that his federal rights were 13 violated, nor does he cite to any federal cases in the petition. The second claim is dismissed 14 because habeas relief is not available for an alleged state law error. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 15 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (a federal habeas court cannot reexamine a state court’s interpretation and 16 application of state law). Liberally construed, the first claim is sufficient to require a response. 17 CONCLUSION 18 1. The clerk will serve by electronic mail a copy of this order on the Attorney General 19 of the State of California at SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov. The clerk also shall serve a copy of 20 this order on petitioner by regular mail. Respondent can view the petition on the electronic docket 21 (Docket No. 12). 22 2. Respondent will file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within fifty-six (56) 23 days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules 24 Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 25 Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state 26 trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the 27 issues presented by the petition. 1 If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he may do so by filing a traverse with the 2 || Court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the answer. 3 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 4 || answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 5 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the date this order 6 || is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an 7 opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, 8 and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days 9 || of receipt of any opposition. 10 4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on 11 respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep 12 || the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely 5 13 || fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 14 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (Sth Cir. 3 15 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: 1/15/2021 18 19 JAMES TO 20 United Stgfes District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28