United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ECF NO. 1
BEELER United States Magistrate Judge
Stanley, an inmate at the High Desert 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. 4.) 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 requires Mr.
Stanley to pay the filing fee or submit a completed in
forma pauperis application to avoid dismissal.
petition provides the following information: After a jury
trial in Alameda County Superior Court, Mr. Stanley was
convicted of attempted murder, mayhem, two counts of unlawful
possession of a firearm, two counts of inflicting corporal
injury on a partner, making a criminal threat, and
kidnapping. He was sentenced on August 15, 2016, to 150 years
to life in prison.
appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed Mr.
Stanley's conviction. Although the petition indicates
that Mr. Stanley did not seek review in the California
Supreme Court, the state court website shows that he did file
a petition for review that was denied on July 11, 2018,
People v. Stanley, Cal. S.Ct. Case. No. S249173. 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. Stanley alleges that the
serious-felony sentence enhancements he received violated his
right to due process because the “enhancements were not
alleged nor found true.” (ECF No. 1 at 6.) Second, Mr.
Stanley contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance of counsel by: (a) failing to object to an expert
witness' testimony that another witness'
identification of Mr. Stanley was “genuine”; (b)
failing to pay to have the case investigated; (c) failing to
call Aleah Lua and Kady Meyn to testify; (d) allowing the
prosecutor to use Mr. Stanley's cell phone photos, text
messages and other information without a search warrant; (e)
failing to use Mr. Stanley's cell phone as a defense; (f)
allowing the prosecutor to inform the jury of Mr.
Stanley's criminal history; (g) failing to provide Mr.
Stanley with an audio of the police interrogation that would
have showed a Miranda violation; and (h) improperly
trying to delay the trial. (Id. at 17.) 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 January 24, 2020, 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 ...