Morrison v. Lozano

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Answer due 2/5/2021; traverse due 3/19/2021. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/20/2020. (Respondent served via email). (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WARREN MORRISON, 8 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. 10 JARED LOZANO, Docket No. 1 Respondent. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 20-cv-04239-EMC 12 13 I. 14 INTRODUCTION Warren Morrison, an inmate currently housed at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se 15 16 action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the 17 Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 18 Cases. II. 19 20 BACKGROUND Following a jury trial in San Mateo County Superior Court, Mr. Morrison was convicted of 21 first degree murder and was found to have personally discharged a firearm in the commission of 22 the offense. He was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison. 23 Mr. Morrison appealed. His conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal 24 and his petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court. The California Court of 25 Appeal apparently granted a motion for recall of the sentencing, and Mr. Morrison is awaiting a 26 new sentencing proceeding. 27 28 III. DISCUSSION This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 1 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 2 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A 3 district court considering an application for writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an 4 order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears 5 from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. 6 § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or 7 conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 8 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). Mr. Morrison’s federal petition for writ of habeas corpus alleges that the failure to properly 10 instruct the jury on provocation denied him his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 a defense and to have the State prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Liberally construed, these 12 claims are cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding and warrant a response. IV. 13 14 For the foregoing reasons, 15 1. CONCLUSION 16 17 The petition states cognizable claims for violations of Mr. Morrison’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 2. The Clerk shall electronically serve a copy of this order upon Respondent and 18 Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email 19 address: The petition and any exhibits thereto are available via 20 the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system for the Northern District of California. The Clerk also 21 shall serve by mail a copy of this order on Petitioner. 22 3. Respondent must file and serve upon Petitioner, on or before February 5, 2021, an 23 answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing 24 cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the answer a 25 copy of all portions of any court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are 26 relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 27 28 4. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse and serving it on Respondent on or before March 19, 2021. 2 1 5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. Petitioner must promptly keep 2 the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely 3 fashion. Petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this case 4 on any document he files in this case. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: November 20, 2020 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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?