Wilkins v. Macomber

Filing 46

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

Download PDF
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

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?