United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se,
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 challenging his conviction in Santa Cruz County
Superior Court. He has paid the filing fee. Because the
petition states cognizable grounds for federal habeas relief,
a response from Respondent is warranted.
2016, a jury found Petitioner and his mother guilty of
first-degree murder. The special circumstance of lying in
wait was found to be true, as were enhancements for the use
of a firearm. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a term
of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Petitioner filed an appeal, a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, and a request for funds for an expert psychiatric
witness in the California Court of Appeal, all of which were
denied. He filed a petition for review in the California
Supreme Court of the denial of his appeal, and a separate
petition for review in the California Supreme Court of the
denial of his habeas petition. Both petitions were summarily
denied. Petitioner then filed the instant federal petition.
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). It
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 that his Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and to
present a defense were violated because he received
ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, and his motion
for funds for ancillary services was also denied. These
claims, when liberally construed, present cognizable grounds
for federal habeas relief.
foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 1. The Clerk
shall serve a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, a
copy of this Order, and the petition, and all attachments
thereto, on Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the
Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk also
shall serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner.
Respondent shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction consent form in accordance with the deadline
provided on the form.
Respondent shall also file with the Court and serve on
Petitioner, within ninety-one (91) days of
the date this Order is issued, 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 state trial 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 the answer, he ...