Chopra
v.
Attorney Gen. of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAOct 26, 2011
No. C 09-0841 JSW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2011)

No. C 09-0841 JSW (PR)

10-26-2011

REENA CHOPRA, Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.


ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL OF


THREE CLAIMS; DIRECTING


PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL


BRIEFING


Petitioner, formerly a prisoner of the State of California, currently on parole, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of her state court conviction. She filed an amended petition setting forth nine claims for relief. In an order dated February 15, 2011, the first six claims were found cognizable, when liberally construed, and Respondent was ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted based on those claims. Claims seven, eight and nine, however, were dismissed for failure to state a cognizable basis for habeas relief. The Court has reviewed the amended petition again, and upon reconsideration, now finds claims seven, eight, and nine to be cognizable when liberally construed. Claim seven asserts that evidence was erroneously admitted, claim eight asserts that pretrial publicity "poisoned" the jury pool, and claim nine asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The portion of the Order of February 15, 2011, dismissing claims seven, eight and nine from the amended petition is VACATED.

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this order, a supplemental 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 based on claims seven, eight and nine. 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 these claims to the extent Respondent has not already done so.

3. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, she shall do so by filing a supplemental traverse with the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of the date the supplemental answer is filed.

4. It remains Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned "Notice of Change of Address." She 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JEFFREY S. WHITE


United States District Judge


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REENA CHOPRA, Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA et al, Defendant.

Case Number: CV09-00841 JSW


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 October 26, 2011, 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.

Reena Chopra


230 Grau Drive


Fremont, CA 94536


Richard W. Wieking, Clerk


By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk