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)

Download PDF
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?