Sanchez v. Arnold

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 10/24/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 8/25/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GENE SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

Case No.4:17-cv-01155-KAW
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1 & 3

ERIC ARNOLD,
Defendant.

12
13

Gene Sanchez, Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison Solano,

14

has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 1.)

15

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a signed verification. (Dkt. No. 3.)
BACKGROUND

16
17

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the State of California in and

18

for the County of Santa Clara. On or about August 19, 2011, he was sentenced to a determinate

19

sentence of 5 years for a prior serious felony allegation, consecutive to an indeterminate term of

20

50 years to life for conspiracy to commit murder with a gang allegation.

21

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the

22

Supreme Court of California, which, on September 21, 2016, denied review of a petition allegedly

23

raising the same claims raised here.
DISCUSSION

24
25

A. Legal Standard

26

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

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

2

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

3

entitled 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).
B. Petitioner’s Legal Claims

7
8
9

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claims that the state
trial court violated petitioner’s right to Confrontation and Due Process under the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, by reason of prosecution witness

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Jeremy Rosario’s refusal to submit to cross-examination. Liberally construed, the claims appear

12

colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and merit an answer from respondents.
CONCLUSION

13
14

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

15

1.

16
17

The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
2.

Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of the

18

date of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section

19

2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent shall

20

file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the administrative record that

21

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

22
23
24
25
26
27

3.

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

with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the answer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 25, 2017
______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2