Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06976/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06976-0/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 

KEVIN LAMAR MOORE,

Petitioner,

v.

DEBBIE ASUNCION,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-06976-WHO (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION 

 Petitioner Kevin Lamar Moore seeks federal habeas relief from his state 

convictions. The petition for such relief has been reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and has been found to state cognizable 

claims. Accordingly, respondent shall file an answer or dispositive motion in response to 

the habeas petition on or before April 10, 2017, unless an extension is granted. 

BACKGROUND 

According to the petition, in 2013 a Sonoma County Superior Court jury convicted 

Moore of robbery and assault, consequent to which he was sentenced to 35 years to life in 

state prison. 

Case 3:16-cv-06976-WHO Document 7 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 3
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

DISCUSSION 

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 considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Moore claims that (1) his constitutional rights 

were violated when he was tried jointly with a co-defendant; (2) the trial court violated his 

right to due process by failing to grant his motion for a mistrial and his motion for a new 

trial; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support his robbery conviction; and (4) his 

sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. When liberally construed, these claims are 

cognizable on federal habeas review. 

CONCLUSION 

 1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments 

thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for 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, on or before April 

10, 2017, 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 based on 

petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 

petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been 

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

 3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse 

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the 

Case 3:16-cv-06976-WHO Document 7 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

answer is filed. 

 4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before April 10, 2017, a motion 

to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 nonopposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file 

with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any 

opposition is filed. 

 5. 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. 

 6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the 

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and 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).

 7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will 

be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 

 8. The Court notes that the filing fee has been paid. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 1, 2017

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06976-WHO Document 7 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 3