United States District Court, N.D. California
WILLIE A. TORRENCE, Petitioner,
ROBERT NEUSCHMID, Respondent.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge.
seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from
his state convictions. The petition for such relief is here
for review under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner has consented
to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 4.)
petition states cognizable claims. On or before
November 25, 2019, respondent shall file in
response to the petition an answer or a dispositive motion.
to the petition in 2014 an Alameda County Superior Court jury
convicted petitioner of murder, attempted murder, shooting
from a motor vehicle, and the use of a firearm by a felon.
Various sentencing enhancement allegations were found true. A
sentence of 121 years to life was imposed.
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).
grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1)
his Confrontation Clause rights were violated; (2) the trial
court wrongly admitted evidence in several instances; (3) the
trial court failed to give a certain jury instruction; and
(4) there was cumulative error. When liberally construed,
these claims are cognizable on federal habeas review.
Clerk shall mail a copy of this order, the petition and all
attachments thereto, and a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction
consent or declination to consent form on respondent and
respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the
State of California. The Clerk shall also mail a copy of this
order on petitioner.
or before November 25, 2019, respondent
shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner 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 based on petitioner’s cognizable
claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on
petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record
that previously have been transcribed and that are relevant
to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by
filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on
respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the
date the answer is filed.
lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before
November 25, 2019, a motion to dismiss on
procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee
Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If
respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with
the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement
of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the
motion is filed, and respondent ...