United States District Court, N.D. California
JONATHAN H. LAMONS, Petitioner,
HEIDI M. LACKNER, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
J. DAVILA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254, challenging his state conviction. Petitioner has paid
the filing fee.
to the petition, Petitioner pleaded guilty in 1983 to false
imprisonment, battery, and sexual battery in Monterey County
Superior Court. (Pet. at 2.) Petitioner was sentenced to
probation, and is currently confined at the Sierra
Conservation Center for subsequent crimes. (Id.)
filed a state habeas petition in the state high court which
was denied on June 10, 2015. (Pet. at 2-3.)
filed the instant federal habeas petition on September 10,
2015. The action was dismissed for failure to pay the filing
fee on February 18, 2016. (Docket No. 6.) The Court granted
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and reopened
the action on March 10, 2016, after it was confirmed that
payment was received and the delay was not due to
Petitioner’s lack of diligence. (Docket No. 9.)
Standard of Review
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).
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.” Id.
claims newly discovered evidence of a “Boykin/Tahl
violation” in his 1983 conviction which “is
causing prejudice to the current 1990
conviction.” (Pet. at 4.) Specifically, Petitioner
claims that had he known that he would have had to register
as a sex offender for life, he would not have entered a
guilty plea. (Pet. at 6.) Liberally construed,
Petitioner’s claim is cognizable and merits an answer
from Respondent. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S.
238, 242-43 (1969).
foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 1. The Clerk
shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition
(Docket No. 1) and all attachments thereto, on Respondent and
Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the
State of ...