York v. Arnold

Filing 2

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 12/20/17. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

DANIEL A. YORK,
Plaintiff,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12

No. C 16-06133 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
ERIC ARNOLD,
Defendant.

13

/

14
15
16

Petitioner Daniel A. York, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254.

17

BACKGROUND

18

Petitioner was charged with violations of California Penal Code sections 245(c)(2), 69,

19

12022(b)(1), 594(a), 665.5(a), 12022.7(a), 1170.12(e), 667.5(b), and Vehicle Code section 20001(a).

20

Petitioner was convicted of these charges. Petitioner contends that he was denied his constitutional

21

rights to due process and a fair trial by the introduction of inaccurate crime scene reenactment

22

evidence and that he was denied his constitutional right to due process when he was convicted of

23

taking a vehicle without sufficient evidence of his guilt.

24

DISCUSSION

25

A.

26

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

Legal Standard.

27

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

28

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

1

“award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be

2

granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

3

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

4

Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or

5

conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

6

490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

7

B.

8

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by way of raising a claim of violations of his due

9

process rights. Liberally construed, the claims appear potentially colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
and merit an answer from Respondents.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Petitioner’s Legal Claims.

CONCLUSION

12

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

13

1.

14
15

Petitioner shall serve by certified mail a copy of this Order and the petition and all
attachments thereto upon Respondent.

2.

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within 60 days of the

16

date of this Order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

17

Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

18

not be issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of

19

all portions of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the

20

issues presented by the petition.

21
22

3.

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, she shall do so by filing a traverse with
the Court and serving it on Respondent within 30 days of her receipt of the answer

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2017
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2