Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03551/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03551-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Frauenheim
Respondent
Christian Perez
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

Northern District of California

E-Filed 5/17/16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTIAN PEREZ,

Petitioner,

vs.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,

Respondent,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Real Party in Interest.

No. 5:14-CV-3551 HRL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner Christian Perez (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner incarcerated at Pleasant Valley 

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

challenging his state conviction.

Background

Following a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of murder, assault on a child causing 

death, torture, and two counts of child abuse. Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Petitioner was sentenced to 25 

years to life in state prison on March 29, 2011. Id.

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

Supreme Court of California, which on May 15, 2013 denied review of a petition allegedly raising 

the same claims raised here. Id.

Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition on August 6, 2014.

Discussion

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

Case 3:14-cv-03551-VC Document 15 Filed 05/17/16 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

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). 

Petitioner raises two claims for relief: (1) prejudicial joinder of two incidents for trial

violated his “Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and a fair trial”; and (2) defense counsel 

failed to object to the joinder and did not move for severance “in violation of [P]etitioner’s Sixth

Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel[.]” Dkt. No. 1 at 13-14. Liberally construed, 

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

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, as well as a magistrate-judge jurisdiction consent form, on Respondent Scott 

Frauenheim (“Respondent”) and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of 

California.

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within 90 days of the 

date of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 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, if any,

that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. At that time, 

Respondent shall also return the magistrate-judge jurisdiction consent form.

If 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.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Governing § 2254 Cases. If 

Case 3:14-cv-03551-VC Document 15 Filed 05/17/16 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

Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent 

shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within 14 days of receipt of any 

opposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/17/16 __________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03551-VC Document 15 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 3