Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00153/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00153-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy Mount
Petitioner
W. J. Sullivan
Defendant

Document Text:

ORDER – No. 20-cv-00153-LB

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 

San Francisco Division 

BILLY MOUNT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

W. J. SULLIVAN, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 20-cv-00153-LB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Re: ECF No. 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Billy Mount, an inmate at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, filed this pro se 

action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He consented to proceed 

before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 3.)1

 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 in the United States 

District Courts. This order requires the respondent to respond to the petition. 

STATEMENT 

The petition provides the following information: After a jury trial in Lake County Superior 

Court, Mr. Mount was found guilty of second-degree murder, assault with a semiautomatic 

1

 Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECFgenerated page numbers at the top of documents. 

Case 3:20-cv-00153-LB Document 4 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 3
ORDER – No. 20-cv-00153-LB 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

firearm, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm. A gang 

enhancement allegation was found true. He was resentenced on June 24, 2019, to life in prison. 

He appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed Mr. Mount’s conviction and the 

California Supreme Court denied his petition for review. He then filed this action. 

ANALYSIS 

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. 

The federal petition for writ of habeas corpus alleges three claims. First, Mr. Mount alleges 

that appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to argue that Mr. Mount was 

actually innocent. Second, he alleges that there was an improper use of gang evidence to convince 

the jury to convict him of murder with no supporting evidence. This appears to be a due process 

claim. See Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990) (court may consider whether the 

evidence was so extremely unfair that its admission violates fundamental conceptions of justice). 

Third, he alleges that trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to present 

Mr. Mount’s two alibi witnesses. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable in a federal 

habeas action and warrant a response. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. The petition warrants a response. 

2. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition upon the respondent and 

the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk shall also 

serve a copy of this order on the petitioner. 

Case 3:20-cv-00153-LB Document 4 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 3
ORDER – No. 20-cv-00153-LB 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

3. The clerk also shall serve a copy of the “consent or declination to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction” form upon the respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the 

State of California. 

4. The respondent must file and serve upon the petitioner, on or before April 24, 2020, 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. The respondent must file with the answer 

a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are 

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petitioner. 

5. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the 

court and serving it on the respondent on or before May 22, 2020. 

6. The petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. The petitioner must promptly keep 

the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely 

fashion. The petitioner is cautioned that he must include the case name and case number for this 

case on the first page of any document he submits to the court for consideration in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 19, 2020 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:20-cv-00153-LB Document 4 Filed 02/19/20 Page 3 of 3