Woo v. Johnson

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/25/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LINDA WOO,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 13-04195 JSW

Petitioner,
v.
DEBORAH K. JOHNSON, Warden of the
Central California Women’s facility,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

13
Respondent.
14
/
15
16
17
18

Petitioner Linda Woo, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
BACKGROUND

19

Petitioner was charged with murder of her three-year-old daughter, attempted murder of

20

her four and a half year old son, with the additional allegation that she had committed the office

21

willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation, and assault on a child under eight years of age

22

by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. Following a jury trial, Petitioner was

23

convicted of murder and attempted murder with the special allegation found to be true. Jurors

24

could not agree on the verdict for the third count, as to which the trial court declared a mistrial.

25

After a sanity phase and following deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding

26

Petitioner sane as to both counts of conviction and the related special allegation. On November

27

24, 2009, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to state prison to serve concurrent sentences for 25

28

years to life and to life in prison, both with the possibility of parole.

1

DISCUSSION

2

A.

Legal Standard.

3

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

4

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

5

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It

6

shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ

7

should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

8

detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

9

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

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

12

B.

13

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claim regarding the

14

trial court rulings regarding the jury instructions given at the sanity phase of her trial. Liberally

15

construed, the claims appear potentially colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer

16

from Respondents.

17

Petitioner’s Legal Claims.

CONCLUSION

18

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

19

1.

20
21

Petitioner shall serve by certified mail a copy of this Order and the petition and
all attachments thereto upon Respondent.

2.

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within 60 days of

22

the date of this Order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

23

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas

24

corpus should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on

25

Petitioner a copy of all portions of the administrative record that are relevant to a

26

determination of the issues presented by the petition.

27
28
2

1

3.

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, she shall do so by filing a traverse

2

with the Court and serving it on Respondent within 30 days of her receipt of the

3

answer.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: October 25, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3