Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00228-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

HUNG QUOC NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JEFF MACOMBER,

Respondent. /

No. C 15-0228 NJV (PR)

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT

TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County, which is in

this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has also applied

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate

Judge.

BACKGROUND

A jury convicted petitioner of first degree murder, conspiring to commit murder,

shooting a firearm from a car, shooting at an occupied car, and street terrorism. He was

sentenced to 53 years to life in state prison. Petitioner’s appeals to the California Court of

Appeal and California Supreme Court were denied.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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 custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

Case 5:15-cv-00228-BLF Document 7 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.

1970)). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) testimonial

statements were admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause; (2) the prosecutor

committed misconduct by arguing facts not in evidence; (3) a gang expert’s testimony was

admitted without proper foundation; (4) because the jury did not give an oral verdict on the

street terrorism count, his right to a jury verdict was denied; (5) the cumulative error of the

admission of the testimonial statements and the prosecutorial misconduct violated his

rights; and (6) if any claims are procedurally defaulted due to trial counsel’s failure to

object, then he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Liberally construed, these

claims are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto and a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form on respondent and

respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall

serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within fifty-six (56)

days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

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

not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all

Case 5:15-cv-00228-BLF Document 7 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant

to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

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

the court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the

answer.

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the

date this order is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the court and serve

on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of

receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply

within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner

must keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\PRO-SE\NJV\HC.15\Nguyen0228.osc.wpd

Case 5:15-cv-00228-BLF Document 7 Filed 01/29/15 Page 3 of 3