Ajaelo v. Madden

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The respondent must file an answer to the petition or a dispositive motion by 2/7/2017. The petitioner may file a traverse by March 9, 2017. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 12/8/2016. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
JIDEOFOR AJAELO,

12

Case No. 16-cv-06962-LB

Petitioner,

13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

14

[Re: ECF No. 1]

RAYMOND MADDEN,

15

Respondent.

16

INTRODUCTION

17

Jideofor Ajaelo, an inmate at California State Prison, Centinela, filed this action seeking a writ

18
19

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to proceed before a magistrate

20

judge. (ECF No. 3.)1 His petition is before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4

21

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. This order

22

requires the respondent to answer the petition.

23
STATEMENT

24

Mr. Ajaelo’s petition relates the following facts. Mr. Ajaelo is incarcerated at California State

25
26

Prison, Centinela, where respondent Raymond Madden is warden. On April 27, 2007, the Alameda

27
Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint cites are to the ECFgenerated page numbers at the tops of documents.
1

28

ORDER — No. 16-cv-06962-LB

1

County Superior Court convicted Mr. Ajaelo of one count of first-degree murder with a drive-by-

2

shooting special circumstance, three counts of premeditated attempted murder, and four arming

3

enhancements. He was sentenced to life without parole for the murder, plus three consecutive life

4

terms for the three attempted murders.

5
6
7

Mr. Ajaelo appealed his conviction. The California Supreme Court denied his petition for
review. This was in May 2009.
In 2015, Mr. Ajaelo filed a state habeas petition challenging his conviction based on the

8

decision in People v. Chiu, 59 Cal. 4th 155 (2014). Following a trial-court decision, and

9

intermediate appellate review, on November 9, 2016, the California Supreme Court denied his

10

petition for review, thus denying him habeas relief.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
ANALYSIS

12
13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from

18

the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

19

Mr. Ajaelo argues that he was wrongly convicted of first-degree murder on an aiding-and-

20

abetting theory that Chiu, supra, held does not apply to first-degree murder. More specifically, he

21

argues that the jury was wrongly instructed on the aiding-and-abetting theory that Chiu precludes.

22

He contends that he was therefore denied due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

23

to the U.S. Constitution.

24
25

The court cannot say that Mr. Ajaelo’s claim is patently without merit. Liberally read, his
claim is cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrants a response.

26
27
28
ORDER — No. 16-cv-06962-LB

2

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the foregoing reasons,

3

1. The petition warrants a response.

4

2. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto

5

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

6

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

7

3. The clerk also shall serve a copy of the “consent or declination to magistrate judge

8

jurisdiction” form upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

9

State of California.
4. The respondent must file and serve upon the petitioner, on or before February 7, 2017, an

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

15
16

5. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the
court and serving it on the respondent on or before March 9, 2017.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: December 8, 2016
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER — No. 16-cv-06962-LB

3