Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00743/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00743-0/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)

---

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

IO 

II 

c:<:l I2 

t:•-

::l E 

o,_£ 13 

U:.= 

..... c:<:l 

.~ u I4 '-'<...,. 

-~ 0 

ou I5 V'J ·c <I) ..... ..... V) 

c:<:l ·- VjO I6 

"" <I) E <I) 

-~ I7 ,...c: 

s:: t: :::::> 0 z I8 

I9 

20 

2I 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

F ftJ ~ !'5 r) 

MA 1'11AYa ~· .~ 4 J I 6 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOVEVAN BOWEN, Case No. I6-cv-00743 LHK (PR) 

Petitioner, 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

v. 

WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden, 

Respondent. 

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

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. For the reasons that follow, the court orders 

respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 

BACKGROUND 

According to the petition, after a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of first degree felony 

murder in San Francisco County Superior Court. Petitioner was sentenced to 25 years to life in 

state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied a 

petition for review. Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on February I2, 20 I6. 

Case No. 16-cv-00743 LHK (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Case 5:16-cv-00743-LHK Document 6 Filed 05/26/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

C<:l 12 

t:: ...... :l a o..s 13 U·-

..... -C<:l 

-~ u 14 '""'<;..... 

-~ 0 

Clt) 15 CI'J ·.: (!) ..... ..... Vl C<:l ...... 

C/50 16 

"' (!) a (!) 

-~ 17 ..r::: 

r::: t:: :::::> 0 z 18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard ofReview 

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. Petitioner's Claims 

Petitioner claims that: ( 1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of first degree 

felony murder; (2) the trial court should not have instructed the jury on an aiding and abetting 

theory of liability; (3) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that Demar Antoine Lacy 

was an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration; and ( 4) the prosecutor committed 

misconduct. 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 

Case No. 16-cv-00743 LHK (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

2 

Case 5:16-cv-00743-LHK Document 6 Filed 05/26/16 Page 2 of 3
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

1:':1 12 

t::"-

::s E 0~ 13 U:.::: 

..... 1:':1 

-~ ~-......., u 14 

-~ 0 

Cl :~ 15 

Q) Vl '"' ..... ..... Vl 

1:':1 ·- 16 ci=iCl 

-o E 

Q) Q) 

.t:: ...t:: 17 

= t:: ;::J 0 

z 18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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 thirty 

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 ofthe 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 may result in the dismissal of 

this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case No. 16-cv-00743 LHK (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3 

Case 5:16-cv-00743-LHK Document 6 Filed 05/26/16 Page 3 of 3