Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05730/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05730-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kelly Harrington
Respondent
Jesus Antonio Ponce
Petitioner

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

For the Northern District of California 

**E-filed 04/02/2010** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

JESUS ANTONIO PONCE, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

KELLY HARRINGTON, Warden 

 Respondent. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-5730 RS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Petitioner Jesus Antonio Ponce, a state prisoner at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, 

California, filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is 

now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. 

II. BACKGROUND 

According to the petition, in 2006 a jury found petitioner guilt of first degree murder, with 

special circumstances, gang, and firearm enhancements all found to be true. Petitioner was 

sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, with a consecutive term of 25 years to life. On 

direct appeal, the California appellate court struck an additional ten-year consecutive term that had 

Case 3:09-cv-05730-RS Document 4 Filed 04/02/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

been imposed, but otherwise affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. 

This federal habeas petition followed. 

 

III. 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, petitioner alleges that: (1) his rights to due process and 

a fair trial were violated by the court’s refusal to instruct on an imperfect defense of others defense; 

(2) his rights were similarly violated by the court’s refusal to instruct on heat of passion; (3) there 

was insufficient evidence to support a first-degree murder conviction, (4) his rights to due process 

and a fair trial were violated by the admission of certain gang evidence, and; (5) he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Liberally construed, the claims appear to be cognizable in a 

federal habeas action. 

 

CONCLUSION 

1. Counsel for petitioner shall serve a copy of this order and the petition and all attachments 

thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California. 

2. Within ninety (90) days of receiving service of this order, Respondent shall file 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 a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously 

Case 3:09-cv-05730-RS Document 4 Filed 04/02/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

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

 3. Petitioner shall file any traverse within thirty (30) days of the date the answer is filed. 

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of receiving service of 

this order, 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 an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion 

is filed, and respondent shall file any reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any opposition is 

filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/02/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:09-cv-05730-RS Document 4 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 3