Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01590/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01590-0/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 1

The petition is not clear as to the precise nature of the modification.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEREK J. SIMMONS,

Petitioner,

 v.

SCOTT KERNAN, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-1590 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2 & 4)

On February 28, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has

applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

BACKGROUND

In 1992, petitioner was sentenced to terms of nine years, three years, and seven-yearsto-life in state prison following his conviction in Monterey County Superior Court of

attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon and aggravated mayhem, respectively. The

California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment with a modification to the mayhem

conviction.1

 The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. Petitioner

thereafter filed unsuccessful habeas petitions at all three levels of the California courts. 

Case 3:06-cv-01590-MMC Document 17 Filed 06/12/06 Page 1 of 4
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

These arguments are repeated in both the first and second claims.

2

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. 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. Legal Claims

In the first and second claims in the petition, petitioner asserts that his life sentence on

the mayhem charge is unconstitutional because the trial court gave incorrect jury instructions,

failed to instruct on the element of intent and on a lesser-included offense, and did not allow

the jury to read a portion of the summation.2

 In the third claim, petitioner contends his

defense counsel was ineffective, in violation of petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights, in

failing to object to the foregoing asserted errors. Petitioner’s claims, liberally construed, are

cognizable. 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petition, along with all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the

Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

on petitioner.

Case 3:06-cv-01590-MMC Document 17 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 4
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

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 60 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 based on petitioner’s three cognizable claims. 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. 

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 30 days of the date the answer is filed.

3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 60 days of the date this order

is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 30 days of the filing of the motion, and respondent shall

file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of the filing of any

opposition.

If respondent moves to dismiss the petition as untimely, respondent shall address

in his motion the arguments in the petition regarding timeliness and tolling of the

statute of limitations.

4. 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. 

5. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

7. In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, his application to proceed in forma

Case 3:06-cv-01590-MMC Document 17 Filed 06/12/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

pauperis is GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2 and 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 12, 2006 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01590-MMC Document 17 Filed 06/12/06 Page 4 of 4