United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES
(In Chambers) Order To Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be
Summarily Dismissed As Second And Successive
August 8, 2019, Mark Anthony Jones (“Petitioner”)
constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by
a Person in State Custody (“Petition”) pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1999 conviction. The
Petition appears subject to dismissal because it is second
and successive. The Court will not make a final determination
regarding whether the Petition should be dismissed, however,
without giving Petitioner an opportunity to address this
November 19, 1999, Petitioner was convicted of attempted
murder in San Bernardino County Superior Court. Jones v.
Runnels, EDCV 03-0557-MMM (FMO), Dkt. 33. The jury also
found true the allegations that, in committing the crime,
Petitioner (1) personally used a firearm; (2) intentionally
and personally discharged a firearm; and (3) intentionally
and personally discharged a firearm proximately causing great
bodily injury to his victim. Id. Petitioner was
sentenced to state prison for a term of 43 years to life.
appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal,
which affirmed the judgment in a reasoned decision on April
9, 2001. Id. Petitioner then filed a petition for
review in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on
June 20, 2001. Id.; see also California
Courts, Appellate Courts Case Information, Docket,
CM9XEtJUEA0UDxbKiMuWzlSQCAgCg%3D%3D (last updated Sept. 5,
2019 12:12 PM).
16, 2003, Petition filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 (“2003 Petition”) in this Court challenging
his 1999 conviction and raising the following six claims for
1. The trial court prejudicially erred in refusing to define
imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter.
2. The trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct
the jury on attempted justifiable homicide.
3. The trial court prejudicially erred by instructing the
jury with CALJIC Nos. 2.06 and 2.52.
4. Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing
to request that the trial court instruct the jury with CALJIC
No. 5.44, and the trial court prejudicially erred by failing
to instruct ...