Llamas v. Seibel

Filing 8

ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 11/22/2016. (nclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LEONARD L. LLAMAS,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-05812 NC

Plaintiff,
ORDER OF SERVICE

v.

12

Re: Dkt. No. 1

13

KIMBERLY A SEIBEL,

14

Defendant.

15
16

Petitioner Leonard L. Llamas, a state prisoner incarcerated at Chuckawalla Valley

17

State Prison, 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 battery with a strike enhancement in the Santa

19
20

Clara Superior Court of the State of California. In February 2012, he was sentenced to

21

eight years in state prison. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the

22

California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which on September 30,

23

2015, denied review of a petition allegedly raising the same claims raised here.

24

II.

25
26

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard

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

27

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

28

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
Case No. 16-cv-05812 NC

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

(9th Cir. 1990).

7
8
9

B.

Petitioner’s Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claims: denial
of the right of self representation and ineffective assistance of counsel. Liberally
construed, the claims appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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-05812 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: November 21, 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-05812 NC

3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LEONARD L. LLAMAS,

Case No. 16-cv-05812-NC

Plaintiff,

5
v.

CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JURISDICTION

6
7

KIMBERLY A SEIBEL,
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-05812 NC

4