Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05622/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05622-0/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

---

1

Case No. 5:14-cv-05622-PSG

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

HEZEKIAH EDWARDS,

Petitioner,

v.

J. SOTO, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 5:14-cv-05622-PSG

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Hezekiah Edwards, a state prisoner proceeding with the assistance of counsel, seeks a writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Edwards has paid the filing fee.2 The court 

orders Respondent J. Soto to show cause why the petition should not be granted based on 

Edwards’s cognizable claims.

I.

Edwards was convicted in state court after a jury found him guilty of two counts of murder 

with special circumstances and one count of attempted murder.3 He was sentenced to life without 

possibility of parole.4 Following an appeal, the California Supreme Court denied review.5

 

1

See Docket No. 1.

2

See id.

3

See id. at ¶ 1.

4

See id.

5

See id. at ¶ 2.

Case 3:14-cv-05622-WHO Document 5 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 5:14-cv-05622-PSG

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

II.

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on “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.”6

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.”7 Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the 

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

false.8

III.

Edwards claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for 

murder, and that the conviction therefore violates his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to 

due process and to have all elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) his 

convictions for murder were unlawful because they were based on the uncorroborated testimony 

of an accomplice, in violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. 

When liberally construed, these claims are cognizable, and the court orders Soto to show cause 

why the petition should not be granted as to these claims.

IV.

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition with all attachments and a 

magistrate judge jurisdiction consent form on Soto and Soto’s attorney, the Attorney General of 

the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Edwards.

Soto shall file with the court and serve on Edwards, within 60 days of the date this order is 

 

6

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).

7

28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

8

See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 

U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

Case 3:14-cv-05622-WHO Document 5 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 5:14-cv-05622-PSG

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

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. Soto shall file with the answer 

and serve on Edwards 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 Edwards wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the 

court and serving it on Soto within 30 days of the date the answer is filed.

Soto may filed 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 60 

days of the date this order is filed. If Soto files such a motion, Edwards shall file with the court 

and serve on Soto an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days of the date the 

motion is filed, and Soto shall file with the court and serve on Edwards a reply within 14 days of 

the date any opposition is filed.

It is Edwards’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Edwards is reminded that all 

communications with the court must be served on Soto by serving a true copy of the document to 

Soto’s counsel. Edwards 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05622-WHO Document 5 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 3