Wilkins v. Macomber

Filing 46

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/24/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KEENAN G. WILKINS,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.16-cv-00221-SI
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 43
JEFF MACOMBER,
Respondent.

12
13

Petitioner Keenan G. Wilkins, a/k/a/ Nerrah Brown, filed this pro se action for a writ of

14

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 25, 2017, the Court granted Wilkins’s

15

request for counsel and thereafter set a schedule for the filing of an amended petition. Docket

16

Nos. 34, 38, 42. On May 5, 2017, Wilkins, now represented by counsel, filed an amended petition

17

for writ of habeas corpus. Docket No. 43. His petition is now before the court for review

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

19

States District Courts.

20
BACKGROUND

21
22

The petition and other filings provide the following information. Keenan Wilkins had a

23

lengthy pretrial detention, a significant portion of which was due to issues related to his mental

24

competency. Following a jury trial, Wilkins was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court of

25

second degree robbery, false imprisonment, and making criminal threats. He also was found to

26

have suffered prior convictions and prior prison terms. In December 2012, he was sentenced to

27

100 years to life in prison.

28

Wilkins appealed. In 2015, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of

1

conviction and the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. Wilkins also filed

2

several unsuccessful petitions for writ of habeas corpus in state courts. He then filed this action.

3
DISCUSSION

4

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

6

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

7

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

8

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue

9

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it

10

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

12

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez,

13

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

14

The amended petition states twenty-three claims, alleging the following: (1) denial of the

15

right to a speedy trial; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel and failure to hold a Marsden hearing;

16

(3) denial of the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; (4) denial of Wilkins’s right

17

to represent himself; (5) excessively harsh and/or grossly disproportionate and/or improperly

18

enhanced sentence; (6) unlawful withholding of Wilkins’s prescribed medications; (7) denial of

19

the right to be free from bodily restraint; (8) violation of due process and equal protection rights

20

when Wilkins was not brought before a magistrate within 48 hours after arrest; (9) violation of due

21

process based on Wilkins’s “Once in Jeopardy” plea; (10) prosecutorial and other government

22

misconduct; (11) failure to preserve evidence; (12) failure to correct false testimony; (13) violation

23

of due process due to judicial misconduct; (14) double jeopardy; and (15) violation of due process

24

based on admission of prior bad acts and prior convictions. Liberally construed, these claims are

25

cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrant an answer from respondent.

26

//

27

//

28

//
2

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the foregoing reasons,

3

1.

4

response.

5

2.

The amended petition states cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrants a

The clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the amended petition and all attachments

6

thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California.

7

The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

8

3.

Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before October 23, 2017, an

answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing

10

cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the answer a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are

12

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. Respondent’s memorandum

13

of points and authorities shall not exceed 50 pages.

14

4.

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with

15

the Court and serving it on respondent on or before November 20, 2017.

16

Petitioner’s

memorandum of points and authorities shall not exceed 25 pages.

17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 24, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3