United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DKT. NOS. 2, 3, AND 6
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.
petition states cognizable claims. On or before
February 18, 2020, respondent shall file in
response to the petition an answer or a dispositive motion.
has consented to magistrate jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 4.)
Respondent must also consent if the undersigned is to
continue as the presiding judge in this action.
to the petition in 2016, a Contra Costa Superior Court jury
convicted petitioner of second degree murder, shooting at a
person from a motor vehicle, and unlawfully possessing a
firearm. A sentence of 75 years to life was imposed.
sought but was denied relief on state review. This federal
habeas petition followed.
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)
there were instructional errors; (2) trial counsel rendered
ineffective assistance; (3) the trial court failed to provide
the jury with an appropriate response to one of its
questions; and (4) there was prosecutorial misconduct
(including Griffin error) and the trial court erred in
allowing it. When liberally construed, these claims are
cognizable on federal habeas review.
motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
(Dkt. Nos. 3 and 6.)
moves for the appointment of counsel because he is a
schizophrenic and the issues presented in the petition are
complex. This motion is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 2.) The case does
not present factually or legally complex issues nor are there
other reasons justifying the appointment of counsel. 18
U.S.C. § 3006A. According to papers filed by petitioner,