Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-00681/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-00681-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

Case No. 20-CV-00681-LHK 

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TIEN NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

v.

R. NEUSHMID,

Respondent.

Case No. 20-CV-00681-LHK 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner has paid the filing fee for this action. See Dkt. No. 7. 

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. 

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

Case 5:20-cv-00681-LHK Document 8 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 20-CV-00681-LHK 

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

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

In the habeas petition, petitioner stated the following two claims: 

(1) his right against self-incrimination, under the Fifth Amendment, was violated when 

detectives induced him to waive his right to an attorney during an interrogation, see Dkt. No. 1 at 

6 & Ex. B at 24-37; and

(2) his right to jury findings of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all elements of seconddegree murder, under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, was violated when the trial 

court failed to instruct the jury on self-defense, see Dkt. No. 1 at 6 & Ex. B at 38-51.

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.

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 

Case 5:20-cv-00681-LHK Document 8 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 20-CV-00681-LHK 

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

twenty-eight 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.

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 will 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: April 2, 2020 

LUCY H. KOH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00681-LHK Document 8 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 3