Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02032/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02032-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ekanem Kufreobon Essien
Petitioner
Suzanne M. Peery
Respondent

Document Text:

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EKANEM KUFREOBON ESSIEN,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUZANNE M. PEERY, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-02032-EDL 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Re: Dkt. No. 1 

Petitioner Ekanem Kufreobon Essien, a state prisoner incarcerated at High Desert State 

Prison, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is 

represented by counsel and has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Petitioner was convicted by a California court of forcible rape while acting in concert in 

violation of California Penal Code section 264.1(a), and second degree robbery in violation of 

California Penal Code sections 211, 212.5(c). Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior 

Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda. On or about March 12, 2012, 

he was sentenced to 34 years and four months incarceration in state prison. Petitioner’s sentence 

was based on the following enhancements: (1) crime committed for the benefit of, at the direction 

of, or in association with, a criminal street gang pursuant to California Penal Code section 

186.22(b)(1); (2) prior serious felony offense pursuant to California Penal Code section 667(a)(1); 

(3) prior prison term pursuant to California Penal Code section 667(b); and (4) prior “strike” 

conviction pursuant to California Penal Code sections 667(c) & (e), 1170.12(a). Petitioner 

unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court 

of California, which on February 11, 2014 denied review of a petition allegedly raising the same 

claims raised here. 

Case 3:15-cv-02032-JD Document 8 Filed 05/29/15 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 Californi

a

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Legal Standard 

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). It 

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). 

B. Petitioner’s Legal Claims 

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claims: (1) 

deprivation of the right to proceed without counsel as recognized in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 

806 (1975); (2) insufficient evidence to support gang sentencing enhancements; (3) admission of 

irrelevant and inflammatory evidence; and (4) misjoinder of defendants. Liberally construed, the 

claims appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from respondents. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown: 

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition 

and all attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of 

this order on petitioner and his counsel. 

2. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days 

of the date of this order, 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 issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy 

of all portions of the administrative record that are relevant to a determination of 

the issues presented by the petition. 

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

Case 3:15-cv-02032-JD Document 8 Filed 05/29/15 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 Californi

a

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of 

the answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 29, 2015 

________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02032-JD Document 8 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 3