Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-01329/USCOURTS-cand-4_20-cv-01329-0/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)

---

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

TODD P WILKINSON,

Petitioner,

v.

R. NDOH,

Respondent.

Case No. 20-cv-01329-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Avenal State Prison, has filed a pro se petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from San Mateo 

County Superior Court. He has paid the filing fee. ECF No. 4.

BACKGROUND

In 2003, petitioner was convicted by a jury of robbery of an inhabited dwelling with prior 

enhancements. ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”) at 1-2. Petitioner was sentenced to thirty-seven years to life. 

Pet. at 1. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, and the appeal was 

denied in 2003. Pet. at 3. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, 

which was denied in 2004. Pet. at 3. 

Petitioner raised the claims in the instant federal habeas petition in collateral proceedings 

in the California state courts. Pet. at 3-4. The California Supreme Court denied his state habeas 

petition on February 13, 2019. Pet. at 4. It is unclear if petitioner as previously filed a habeas 

petition in the federal courts challenging this conviction. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

Case 4:20-cv-01329-JST Document 5 Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 3
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

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). A 

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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. Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner argues that, recently, the California 

Supreme Court set a new precedent in People v. Gallardo, 4 Cal. 5th 120 (2017) that renders his 

sentence in violation of the Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, 

petitioner argues that the trial court erred in engaging in fact-finding regarding his prior 

convictions, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, and that there was 

insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that he had suffered the prior convictions.1

Liberally construed, the claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from 

respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must 

construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order and the petition and all attachments 

thereto (ECF No. 1) 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 granted 

based on the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 

1 Petitioner’s remaining argument, that he has suffered a miscarriage of justice, does not directly 

challenge the validity of his conviction, but rather argues that, to the extent that the instant federal 

habeas petition is considered untimely or procedurally barred, his claims should still be heard on 

the merits. 

Case 4:20-cv-01329-JST Document 5 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 3
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

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 thirty (30) days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within sixty (60) days, 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 twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition is filed.

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. Petitioner must keep 

the Court 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). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 

1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

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

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2020

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-01329-JST Document 5 Filed 02/25/20 Page 3 of 3