Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02633/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02633-0/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

QUINCY ROBERTSON,

Petitioner, No. C 10-2633 PJH

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; RE:

JAMES WALKER, IFP APPLICATION

Respondent.

_______________________________/

Petitioner Quincy Robertson (“Robertson”), a state prisoner, has filed a second and

successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as authorized

by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ June 15, 2010 order. 

BACKGROUND

On February 7, 2001, Robertson was convicted of second degree murder and

assault with infliction of great bodily injury, and was found to have personally used a firearm

in commission of the offenses, by a jury in the Alameda County Superior Court in the State

of California. He was sentenced to forty years to life in prison. Robertson unsuccessfully

appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment on

June 30, 2003. The California Supreme Court subsequently denied Robertson’s petition for

review on August 19, 2004. He filed his first federal habeas petition on August 1, 2005, 05-

3103 PJH, which this court denied on January 3, 2008. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this

court’s denial of the petition on February 2, 2009.

Subsequently, on March 30, 2009, the California Supreme Court decided People v.

Chun, 45 Cal.4th 1172 (2009), and expressly overruled its prior published opinion in

Robertson’s case, 34 Cal.4th 156 (2004), but did not vacate Robertson’s conviction or

Case 4:10-cv-02633-PJH Document 4 Filed 06/24/10 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

remand the matter. Robertson then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the

California Supreme Court on May 8, 2009, which it denied without comment 

on October 14, 2009. 

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 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claim

Petitioner seeks habeas relief based on one of the claims raised in his prior petition: 

that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and his due process rights

when the trial court allowed the jury to convict him of second degree felony murder without

an express finding of malicious intent. He claims that following the California Supreme

Court’s decision in Chun, 45 Cal.4th at 1172, he is entitled to relief. The claim appears

colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merits an answer from respondent.

C. IFP Application

Robertson’s application for in forma pauperis status is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE because Robertson has not included an affidavit with his prisoner account

balance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner is ordered to pay the filing fee required in habeas cases.

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

all attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

Case 4:10-cv-02633-PJH Document 4 Filed 06/24/10 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

on petitioner.

3. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

the date 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 administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by

the petition.

4. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

 traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the

answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2010 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-02633-PJH Document 4 Filed 06/24/10 Page 3 of 3