Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-20/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). In response, 

Respondent filed an answer. (Doc. No. 45). 

Petitioner challenges his 2018 conviction and 40-years to life sentence for, inter alia, 

attempted murder, entered by the Tulare Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1). The Petition raises two 

grounds for relief: (1) the conviction “lacks foundation” because the “Tulare County District 

Attorney failed to present the Police to testify to the investigation of the case itself, interviewing

of witnesses, evidence gathering and handling, and probable cause to seize Petitioner for any 

crime”; and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for similarly failing to “compel the police to 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 63 Filed 05/11/22 Page 1 of 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

2

testify to the investigation of the case itself, interviewing of witnesses, evidence gathering and 

handling, and probable cause to seize Petitioner for any crime.” (Doc. No. 1 at 5). Respondent’s 

answer summarily indicates that “the California Supreme Court rejected Petitioner’s habeas 

claims (1) demanding trial proof (a) that his arrest was proper under state law and (b) of all 

charges-related information that was, or could have been, obtained by law enforcement, and (2) 

claiming counsel wrongly did not enforce such proof.” (Doc. No. 45 at 1). However, upon 

review of Respondent’s answer, the Court is unable to discern any specific reference to a state 

court decision that addresses the precise grounds raised in the Petition currently pending before 

this Court; rather, Respondent’s answer generally references two separate state habeas petitions

filed by Petitioner in the California Supreme Court with no reference to exhaustion or the last 

reasoned court decision. (Doc. No. 45 at 10 (citing Doc. No. 41-19 (Case No. S254307, habeas 

petition filed in February 2019); Doc. No. 41-24 (Case No. S266454, habeas petition filed in

January 2021)).

A federal court’s statutory authority to issue habeas corpus relief for persons in state 

custody is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). AEDPA requires a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief to 

first “exhaus[t] the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). If 

the state courts do not adjudicate the prisoner’s federal claim “on the merits,” a de novo standard 

of review applies in the federal habeas proceeding; if the state courts do adjudicate the claim on 

the merits, then the AEDPA mandates a deferential, rather than de novo, review. Kernan v. 

Hinojosa, 136 S. Ct. 1603, 1604 (2016). Here, Respondent’s briefing does not accurately point 

the Court to where Petitioner raised the instant grounds for relief in the state court record, where 

those claims were properly exhausted, and the last reasoned decision by the state court as to those 

specific claims.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Respondent shall submit a 

supplemental brief that directs the Court to (1) where in the state court record 

Petitioner raised the specific grounds for relief identified in his federal Petition; (2) 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 63 Filed 05/11/22 Page 2 of 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

3

where in the state court record those claims were properly exhausted; and (3) the last 

reasoned opinion in the state court record. Respondent is also directed to specifically 

address the merits of each ground, allegation, and argument raised in the Petition. 

Respondent is reminded that conclusory statements and summary arguments 

that Petitioner is not entitled to relief under § 2254 are not acceptable responses.

2. Petitioner may, but is not required to, file a response to Respondent’s supplemental 

brief within ten (10) days after receipt of Respondent’s supplemental brief.

Dated: May 10, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 63 Filed 05/11/22 Page 3 of 3