Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cardenas v. Swarthout

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 3, 2013

JONATHAN CARDENAS, Petitioner,
v.
GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, Respondent.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. For the reasons that follow, the court orders respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, on August 4, 2010, petitioner was sentenced to a term of 16-years to life after being convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon in Santa Cruz County Superior Court. In 2012, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on September 10, 2013.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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).

A district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

B. Petitioner's Claims

Petitioner raises the following claims in his petition: (1) the trial court improperly admitted evidence regarding gangs and petitioner's prior statements about gang culture even though there was no evidence that petitioner's offense was gang-related; (2) the trial court erred in refusing petitioner's request to modify CALCRIM Nos. 371 and 372 to instruct the jury that "consciousness of guilt may not be considered in determining the degree of defendant's guilt"; and (3) the cumulative errors prejudiced petitioner.

The court orders respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all attachments thereto (docket no. 1) upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of the date this order is filed, 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 underlying state criminal 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.