United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.
Johnny Lindel Lewis, a prisoner at the California Men's Colony, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from Humboldt County Superior Court. His petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. He has paid the $5.00 filing fee.
In 2010, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of first degree murder with a special enhancement for personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison. In 2012, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. The instant action was filed on January 6, 2014.
A. Standard of Review
This Court may entertain a petition for 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). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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).
B. Legal Claims
As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner claims: (1) the trial court erred in admitting his statement to police as evidence at trial because he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his rights under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 486 (1966) and did not voluntarily make the statement; (2) his due process rights were violated by admission of evidence, unrelated to the crime, concerning weapons in Petitioner's possession, blood on Petitioner's clothing, and blood in a van Petitioner once owned; (3) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a limiting instruction regarding evidence of a knife that Petitioner had borrowed; and (4) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to renew his objection to admission of evidence of blood found on Petitioner's clothing. When liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to warrant an answer from Respondent.
C. Proper Respondent
The rules governing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court to name the "state officer having custody'" of him as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez , 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section § 2254). This person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. See Stanley v. California Supreme Court , 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the proper respondent here is Warden Elvin Valenzuela of the California Men's Colony where Petitioner is currently incarcerated.
For the foregoing reasons and for good ...