Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-04462/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-04462-0/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

OSCAR GILBERTO PATINO,

Petitioner,

v.

CRAIG KOENIG,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-04462-SVK 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 1. Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. His petition sets forth two 

claims challenging the constitutionality of his conviction in state court: (1) improper admission of 

expert testimony in violation of Petitioner’s right to due process and a fair trial under the 

Fourteenth Amendment; and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of Petitioner’s Sixth 

and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.

These claims, when liberally construed, are cognizable and potentially meritorious. Good 

cause appearing, Respondent is hereby ordered to show cause why the petition should not be 

granted.

To facilitate resolution of this case, it is further ordered as follows:

1. Petitioner shall serve Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of 

the State of California, with a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments. 

2. The Clerk shall send a notice to Respondent regarding consenting to or declining the 

jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.

3. Consistent with Habeas Local Rule 2254-6, Respondent shall file with the Court and 

serve on Petitioner, within 60 days of service of the petition and this order, an answer 

conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 

Case 5:19-cv-04462-SVK Document 6 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 2
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

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 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.

4. 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.

5. Respondent may file, within 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 30 days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent shall file with the Court 

and serve on Petitioner a reply within 14 days of the date any opposition is filed.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-04462-SVK Document 6 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 2