United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, Petitioner,
SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Respondent.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ECF NO. 1
BEELER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
M. Martinez, an inmate at the Pleasant Valley State Prison,
filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He consented to
proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 3.) 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 in
the United States District Courts. This order requires the
respondent to respond to the petition and grants Mr.
Martinez's in forma pauperis application.
Martinez provides the following information in his petition:
After a jury trial in Monterey County Superior Court, Mr.
Martinez was convicted of first degree murder and was found
to have personally discharged a firearm in the commission of
the offense. He was sentenced in 2015 to 50 years to life in
appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed Mr.
Martinez's conviction and the California Supreme Court
denied his petition for review. He also filed unsuccessful
petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the state courts. He
then filed this action.
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.
federal petition for writ of habeas corpus alleges the
following claims. First, Mr. Martinez alleges that he
received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in that
counsel made the sixteen mistakes described in the petition.
(ECF No. 1 at 5-8.) Second, Mr. Martinez alleges that the
cumulative effect of the errors at his trial warrants habeas
relief. (Id. at 8.) Third, he alleges that his right
to due process was violated due to the prosecutorial
misconduct that consisted of introducing false testimony,
suppressing material favorable evidence, and misleading the
jury during closing argument. (Id. at 9.) Liberally
construed, these claims are cognizable in a federal habeas
action and warrant a response.
foregoing reasons, 1. The petition warrants a response.
clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the
petition upon the respondent and the respondent's
attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California.
The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the
clerk also shall serve a copy of the “consent or
declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction” form upon
the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the
Attorney General of the State of California.
respondent must file and serve upon the petitioner, on or
before December 20, 2019, 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 issued. The respondent must file with the
answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that
have been ...