Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01414/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01414-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roderick Hickman
Respondent
Tin Tri Nguyen
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIN TRI NGUYEN,

Petitioner,

 v.

RODERICK HICKMAN, D.O.C.,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-1414 MJJ

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Tin Tri Nguyen’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

(Doc. # 1.) Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the California State Prison, Los Angeles County,

in Lancaster, California. Petitioner was found guilty of first degree murder. Petitioner alleges two

claims. First, Petitioner alleges that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel in

violation of the Sixth Amendment. Second, Petitioner alleges that he was deprived of his right to

due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because: (1) the police coerced and intimidated

witnesses; (2) the trial court admitted involuntary statements of three witnesses and the codefendant; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s findings; (3) the prosecutor

committed misconduct; and (4) the trial judge denied a witness’s request for an interpreter

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). 

The court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why

Case 3:06-cv-01414-JSW Document 6 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 2
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

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. 

For good cause shown, Respondent shall, by February 5, 2007, show cause why a writ of

habeas corpus should not be issued. If Petitioner wishes to respond, he shall do so within thirty days

of his receipt of the answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01414-JSW Document 6 Filed 12/08/06 Page 2 of 2