Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01722/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01722-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gumaro Baez
Petitioner
William Muniz
Respondent

Document Text:

Case No.15-cv-01722-NC 

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

GUMARO BAEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Defendant.

Case No.15-cv-01722-NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner Gumaro Baez, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, 

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

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of two counts of murder, 2 counts of attempted 

murder, and one count of attempting to dissuade a witness in the Alameda Superior Court 

of the State of California. On February 27, 2012, he was sentenced to 2 consecutive life 

terms in prison without parole in state prison. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his 

conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which 

on February 26, 2014, denied review of a petition allegedly raising the same claims raised 

here.

///

Case 3:15-cv-01722-WHA Document 6 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 3
Case No.:15-cv-01722-NC 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

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) the 

state court improperly applied federal constitutional law, and (2) the attempting to dissuade 

a witness charge was not supported by sufficient evidence. Liberally construed, the claims 

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

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 respondent. The clerk shall also 

serve a copy of this order on petitioner.

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

days of the date of this order, an answer showing why a writ of habeas 

corpus should not be issued (or -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

Case 3:15-cv-01722-WHA Document 6 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 3
Case No.:15-cv-01722-NC 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

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 

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

receipt of the answer.

4. Respondent shall file a consent or declination to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction within 14 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01722-WHA Document 6 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3