Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04116/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04116-1/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)

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JONATHAN H. LAMONS,

Petitioner, 

v. 

HEIDI M. LACKNER, Warden, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 15-04116 EJD (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Petitioner has paid 

the filing fee. 

BACKGROUND 

According to the petition, Petitioner pleaded guilty in 1983 to false imprisonment, 

battery, and sexual battery in Monterey County Superior Court. (Pet. at 2.) Petitioner was 

sentenced to probation, and is currently confined at the Sierra Conservation Center for 

subsequent crimes. (Id.) 

Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the state high court which was denied on 

June 10, 2015. (Pet. at 2-3.) 

Case 5:15-cv-04116-EJD Document 12 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on September 10, 2015. The 

action was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee on February 18, 2016. (Docket No. 

6.) The Court granted Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and reopened the action on 

March 10, 2016, after it was confirmed that payment was received and the delay was not 

due to Petitioner’s lack of diligence. (Docket No. 9.) 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 This court may entertain a petition for a 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). 

 It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause 

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

or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims 

Petitioner claims newly discovered evidence of a “Boykin/Tahl violation” in his 

1983 conviction which “is causing prejudice to the current 1990 conviction.” 1 (Pet. at 4.) 

Specifically, Petitioner claims that had he known that he would have had to register as a 

sex offender for life, he would not have entered a guilty plea. (Pet. at 6.) Liberally 

construed, Petitioner’s claim is cognizable and merits an answer from Respondent. See 

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43 (1969). 

/// 

 

1 Attached to the petition is an order from the Ninth Circuit, denying Petitioner’s request to 

file a second or successive petition challenging his 1990 state court conviction. (Pet. 

Attach. at 2.) However, the appellate court stated that Petitioner may file a section 2254 

petition challenging his 1983 conviction without obtaining prior authorization because the 

record did not reflect that he had ever filed a habeas petition challenging that conviction. 

(Id. at 2-3.) Accordingly, this action only challenges the constitutionality of Petitioner’s 

1983 conviction. 

Case 5:15-cv-04116-EJD Document 12 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 4
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition (Docket 

No. 1) and all attachments thereto, 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. 

 2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60) 

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 issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all 

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. At that time, Respondent shall 

also return the magistrate judge jurisdiction consent form. 

 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 thirty (30) days of his receipt of the 

answer. 

 3. 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, Petitioner shall file with the Court 

and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twentyeight (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. 

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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 and all 

parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He 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 

Case 5:15-cv-04116-EJD Document 12 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order to Show Cause 

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\04116Lamons_osc 

7/21/2016

Case 5:15-cv-04116-EJD Document 12 Filed 07/21/16 Page 4 of 4