Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03984/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03984-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

Case No. 16-cv-03984 LHK (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YUSUF ALI BEY, IV,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

 Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-03984 LHK (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. For the reasons that follow, the court orders 

respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

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); Rose v. 

Case 4:16-cv-03984-HSG Document 5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-03984 LHK (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

2

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 California

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate 

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

frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting 

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner claims that: (1) the trial court violated petitioner’s constitutional rights by 

denying his motion for a change of venue; (2) the trial court violated petitioner’s constitutional 

rights when it instructed the jury that it could consider co-defendant Mackey’s testimony for all 

purposes against either defendant; (3) the trial court violated petitioner’s constitutional rights 

when it instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 317; (4) the trial court violated petitioner’s 

constitutional rights by allowing the jury to corroborate Broussard’s statements with Broussard’s 

own pretrial statements; (5) counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an 

instruction telling jurors that they could not consider accomplice Broussard’s guilty plea as 

substantive evidence of petitioner’s guilty; (6) the evidence was insufficient to convict petitioner 

of the Wills homicide; (7) the trial court violated petitioner’s constitutional rights by allowing the 

jury to convict petitioner of the Wills homicide based solely on Broussard’s accomplice testimony; 

and (8) the cumulative effect of the errors was prejudicial. Liberally construed, petitioner has 

stated cognizable claims for relief. The court orders respondent to show cause why the petition 

should not be granted as to these claims.

Petitioner also claims that the trial court failed to grant petitioner’s motion to suppress 

evidence. However, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82 (1976), bars federal habeas review of 

Fourth Amendment claims unless the state did not provide an opportunity for full and fair 

Case 4:16-cv-03984-HSG Document 5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-03984 LHK (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

3

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 California

litigation of those claims. Petitioner does not contend that he was not afforded a full and fair 

opportunity, and a review of the California Court of Appeal’s opinion affirming petitioner’s

judgment shows that petitioner was indeed afforded a hearing on the motion to suppress. See 

People v. Mackey, et al., 233 Cal. App. 4th 32, 93-94 (Cal. App. Jan. 14, 2015). The existence of 

a state procedure allowing an opportunity for full and fair litigation of Fourth Amendment claims 

bars federal habeas consideration of those claims. See Newman v. Wengler, 790 F.3d 873, 880

(9th Cir. 2015). Thus, this claim is dismissed with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

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

attachments thereto (docket no. 1) upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney 

General of the State of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of 

the date this order is filed, 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 portions of the 

underlying state criminal 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 thirty 

days of the date the answer is filed.

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 within sixty days of the date this order is filed. If respondent files such a motion, 

petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of nonopposition within twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with 

the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

Case 4:16-cv-03984-HSG Document 5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-03984 LHK (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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 California

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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

LUCY H. KOH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9/23/2016

Case 4:16-cv-03984-HSG Document 5 Filed 09/26/16 Page 4 of 4