Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00099/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00099-0/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

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARED FLINT JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Warden of Pleasant Valley State Prison,

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

No. C 07-00099 MHP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Jared Flint Jackson, a California prisoner now incarcerated at Pleasant Valley

State Prison, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. His

petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2243 and Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

BACKGROUND1

On January 28, 2006 petitioner was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault in

violation of California Penal Code section 269 and one count of child endangerment in violation of

California Penal Code section 273a(b). Petitioner is currently serving two consecutive life terms for

his related convictions.

During the course of petitioner’s trial, the prosecution introduced the testimony of a

physician’s assistant who purported that she had examined the victim approximately eleven months

after the assault. The physician’s assistant testified that the examination of the victim revealed

Case 3:07-cv-00099-MHP Document 3 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 5
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

details “suggestive of prior penetrating trauma.” Defense counsel sought no independent medical

opinion as to the validity of these conclusions, nor did the defense move to submit evidence into the

record regarding the victim’s sexual history. Since then, petitioner has obtained expert testimony

contradicting that presented by the prosecution at trial. 

Petitioner has appealed his convictions and petitioned for writ of habeas corpus at every level

of the California courts. Having exhausted his avenues for relief from the state, petitioner now seeks

redress from this court. 

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). 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. Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub nom. Hendricks v. Calderon, 517 U.S.

1111 (1996). Alternatively, the State may be ordered to show cause where the underlying decision

“was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks habeas relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in his criminal trial. 

He points to both the defense’s failure to reasonably investigate inculpatory evidence and a failure to

present related exculpatory evidence. Petitioner further argues that these objective deficiencies

deprived him of a fair trial as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. 

 “An ineffective assistance claim has two components: a petitioner must show that counsel’s

Case 3:07-cv-00099-MHP Document 3 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 5
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

performance was deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.” Wiggins v. Smith, 539

U.S. 510, 521 (2003) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). The right to

effective assistance of counsel is “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). 

See, e.g., Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). Where a defense attorney allegedly fails

to make reasonable investigations, “a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed

for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a heavy measure of deference to counsel’s

judgments.” Silva v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 825, 836 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at

491). 

Petitioner’s allegations are not patently frivolous and assert a cognizable claim for habeas

relief. Therefore, respondent must show cause for petitioner’s continuing detention.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claims are cognizable;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this Order and the

petition and all attachments thereto upon respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General

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

petitioner.

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before May 1, 2007, 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

must file with the answer a copy of all portions of the trial record that have been

transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition.

Case 3:07-cv-00099-MHP Document 3 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 5
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

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

the court and serving it on respondent on or before May 29, 2007.

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 2, 2007 _______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court 

Northern District of California

Case 3:07-cv-00099-MHP Document 3 Filed 04/03/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all facts are taken from petitioner’s memorandum in support of his

petition.

ENDNOTE

Case 3:07-cv-00099-MHP Document 3 Filed 04/03/07 Page 5 of 5