Allen Williams v. John Soto
Filing
15
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2015)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
ALLEN WILLIAMS,
Case No. 15-cv-04783-EDL
Plaintiff.
5
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
6
7
Re: Dkt. No. 1
JOHN SOTO,
Defendant.
8
9
Petitioner Allen Williams, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by counsel and has consented to the
12
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.
13
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner was convicted by a California court of corporal injury on his spouse in violation
14
15
of California Penal Code section 273.5(a) and assault by means of force likely to produce great
16
bodily injury in violation of California Penal Code section 245(a)(4). Petitioner was convicted by
17
a jury in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Mateo.
18
Petitioner was sentence to 39 years to life imprisonment. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his
19
conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which on July
20
23, 2014 denied review of a petition raising the same claims raised here.
21
II.
DISCUSSION
22
A.
Legal Standard
23
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
24
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
25
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It
26
shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should
27
not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not
28
entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations
1
in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See
2
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
Petitioner’s Legal Claims
3
B.
4
Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claims: (1) improper
5
exclusion of evidence in violation of Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973); and (2)
6
ineffective assistance of trial counsel in violation of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
7
(1984). Liberally construed, the claims appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an
8
answer from respondents.
9
III.
10
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
1.
12
and all attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of
13
this order on petitioner and his counsel.
14
2.
15
of the date of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
16
17
18
19
20
The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition
Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should
not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy
of all portions of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of
the issues presented by the petition.
3.
If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a
traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of
21
the answer.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: December 3, 2015
24
25
26
______________________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?