Jacob Christian Mullan v. Eric Arnold

Filing 7

ORDER OF SERVICE. Respondent shall file a consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction within 14 days. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/28/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

JACOB CHRISTIAN MULLAN,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.15-cv-01003 NC
ORDER OF SERVICE

12

v.

13

ERIC ARNOLD,

Re: Dkt. No. 3
Defendant.

14
15

Petitioner Jacob Christian Mullan, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State

16
17

Prison, Solano, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

18

2254.

19

I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner was convicted by a jury of rape in the Alameda Superior Court of the

20
21

State of California. On January 9, 2012, he was sentenced to 16 years in state prison; six

22

years for the underlying offense and ten years due to a gang enhancement. Petitioner

23

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

24

Court of California, which on February 11, 2014, denied review of a petition allegedly

25

raising the same claims raised here.

26

II.

27
28

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person
Case No.15-cv-01003 NC

1

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

2

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 2254(a). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause

4

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant

5

or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is

6

appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably

7

incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491

8

(9th Cir. 1990).

9
10

B.

Petitioner’s Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claims: that he

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

was denied his right to a fair trial by the misjoinder of defendants; that the evidence was

12

insufficient to sustain the true findings on the gang enhancements; that he was prejudiced

13

by the admission of prison gang evidence, by evidence of other gang “contacts,” and by

14

expert opinion evidence on his specific intent; and that his trial was rendered

15

fundamentally unfair by the cumulative effect of the errors at trial. Liberally construed,

16

the claims appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent.

17

III. CONCLUSION

18
19

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:
1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

20

petition and all attachments thereto upon respondent. The clerk shall also

21

serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

22

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60

23

days of the date of this order, an answer showing why a writ of habeas

24

corpus should not be issued (or -an answer conforming in all respects to

25
26
27

Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a
writ of habeas corpus should not be issued). Respondent shall file with
the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the

28
Case No.15-cv-01003 NC

2

1

administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues

2

presented by the petition.

3

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

4

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his

5

receipt of the answer.

6
7

4. Respondent shall file a consent or declination to magistrate judge
jurisdiction within 14 days.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: October 28, 2015

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.15-cv-01003 NC

3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JACOB CHRISTIAN MULLAN,

Case No. 15-cv-01003-NC

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JURISDICTION

6
7

ERIC ARNOLD,
Defendant.

8
9

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate below by checking one of the two boxes whether
you (if you are the party) or the party you represent (if you are an attorney in the case)

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

choose(s) to consent or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Sign this form

12

below your selection.

13

( ) Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

14

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I voluntarily consent to

15

have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case,

16

including trial and entry of final judgment. I understand that appeal from the judgment

17

shall be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
OR

18
19

( ) Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

20

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I decline to have a United

21

States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case and I hereby request

22

that this case be reassigned to a United States district judge.

23
24

DATE:

NAME:
COUNSEL FOR:
(OR “PRO SE:)

25
26

__________________________________
Signature

27
28
Case No.15-cv-01003 NC

4