Jose Bautista v. R. Diaz

Filing 16

ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 9/1/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSE BAUTISTA, Plaintiff, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 ORDER OF SERVICE v. 13 Case No. 16-cv-03174 NC R. DIAZ, Defendant. 14 15 Petitioner Jose Bautista, a state prisoner incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, 16 17 has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 I. BACKGROUND Petitioner was convicted by a jury of robbery with a firearm enhancement in the 19 20 Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California. On May 23, 2013, he was 21 sentenced to two years for robbery and a consecutive 20 years for a firearm enhancement 22 in state prison. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of 23 Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which on June 10, 2015, denied review of a 24 petition allegedly raising the same claims raised here. 25 II. 26 27 28 DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in Case No. 16-cv-03174 NC 1 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 2 § 2254(a). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause 3 why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant 4 or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is 5 appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably 6 incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 7 (9th Cir. 1990). 8 B. Petitioner’s Legal Claims Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claim: 10 ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase. Liberally construed, the claims 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 14 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown: 1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the 15 petition and all attachments thereto upon respondent. The clerk shall also 16 serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 17 2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 18 days of the date of this order, an answer showing why a writ of habeas 19 corpus should not be issued (or -an answer conforming in all respects to 20 21 22 23 24 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 administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 3. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a 25 26 traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the answer. 27 28 Case No. 16-cv-03174 NC 2 1 2 4. Respondent shall file a consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction within 14 days. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: September 1, 2016 7 _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 16-cv-03174 NC 3 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JOSE BAUTISTA, Case No. 16-cv-03174-NC Plaintiff, 5 v. CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION 6 7 R. DIAZ, 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. 16-cv-03174 NC 4

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?