Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03634/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03634-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Duarte
Petitioner
Felix M. Vasquez
Respondent

Document Text:

Case No. 16-cv-03634 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

KEVIN DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FELIX M. VASQUEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03634 NC 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Petitioner Kevin Duarte, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison in 

Wasco, 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 murder, commission of murder during an 

attempted robbery, discharge of a firearm, and shooting into an occupied vehicle in the 

Alameda County Superior Court of the State of California. On February 10, 2012, he was 

sentenced to life without possibility of parole plus a consecutive 25 years to life in state 

prison. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal 

and the Supreme Court of California, which on March 25, 2016, denied review of a 

petition allegedly raising the same claims raised here.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

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

Case 3:16-cv-03634-RS Document 5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 1 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-03634 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

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) a 

violation of his fifth and fourteenth amendment rights; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) 

ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) violation of his eight amendment rights. 

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

administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues 

presented by the petition.

Case 3:16-cv-03634-RS Document 5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-03634 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

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: September 1, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03634-RS Document 5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-03634 NC 4

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

KEVIN DUARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FELIX M. VASQUEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03634 NC 

CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

JURISDICTION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate below by checking one of the two boxes whether 

you (if you are the party) or the party you represent (if you are an attorney in the case) 

choose(s) to consent or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Sign this form 

below your selection.

( ) Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I voluntarily consent to 

have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, 

including trial and entry of final judgment. I understand that appeal from the judgment 

shall be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

OR

( ) Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I decline to have a United 

States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case and I hereby request 

that this case be reassigned to a United States district judge.

DATE: NAME:

COUNSEL FOR:

(OR “PRO SE:)

__________________________________

Signature

Case 3:16-cv-03634-RS Document 5 Filed 09/01/16 Page 4 of 4