United States District Court, N.D. California
TERRENCE M. SINGLETON, Petitioner,
M. ELIOT SPEARMAN, Respondent.
ORDER REOPENING ACTION; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WILLIAM H. ORRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Terence Singleton seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 from his state convictions. The petition for such
relief states cognizable claims. Accordingly, on or before
February 10, 2020, respondent shall file an
answer or a dispositive motion in response to the petition.
petition may be untimely. Singleton was
convicted in 2016 but the present petition was not filed
until 2019, which is outside the one-year statute of
limitations period for filing a federal habeas petition.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Respondent is
directed to consider first if the petition is in fact
untimely. If respondent concludes that it is untimely, he may
file a motion to dismiss on such grounds, though he is not
required to do so.
2016, Singleton was convicted by a San Francisco County
Superior jury of second degree robbery. (Am. Pet., Dkt. No.
19 at 1; People v. Singleton, No. A148969, 2018 WL
1281675 at *1 (Cal.Ct.App. Mar. 13, 2018).) A sentence of 13
years was imposed. (Am. Pet., Dkt. No. 19 at 12.)
attempts to overturn his convictions in state court were
unsuccessful. This federal habeas petition followed.
original petition was dismissed with leave to amend. (Dkt.
No. 12.) When Singleton did not file an amended petition by
the deadline - which had been extended twice at
petitioner's request - the suit was dismissed. (Dkt. Nos.
17 and 18.) Singleton since has filed an amended petition.
Accordingly, this action is REOPENED. The Clerk shall modify
the docket to reflect this. The judgment and the order of
dismissal are VACATED.
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, Singleton claims (1) the
evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions; (2)
there was instructional error; (3) evidence was wrongly
admitted; and (4) there was cumulative error. When liberally
construed, these claims are cognizable on federal habeas
Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all
attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent's
counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California.
The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on
or before February 10, 2020, 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