Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02093/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02093-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pedro Hernandez
Petitioner
Jeanne Woodford
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

PEDRO HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

 JEANNE WOODFORD,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-02093 MHP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

In 2003, petitioner Pedro Hernandez (“Hernandez”) was convicted and sentenced in

Monterey County, California for second degree murder and attempted murder. He is now

incarcerated at the California State Prison in Sacramento County, California. Hernandez has filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254. His petition is now before the

court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Venue is proper in this district because

petitioner was sentenced and convicted here in the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §

2241(d); Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(a)(1).

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). A district court 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

Case 3:05-cv-02093-MHP Document 15 Filed 06/18/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. “If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition.” Rule

4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the

allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, patently frivolous or false. 

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub nom. Hendricks v.

Calderon, 517 U.S. 1111 (1996).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner Hernandez was convicted and sentenced for the murder of Maricella Navarette and

attempted murder of Juan Castro during an alleged gang-related altercation in August 2002. At trial,

petitioner’s accomplice testified that following an exchange of rival gang hand symbols, petitioner

opened fire on the automobile in which Castro was the driver and Navarette a passenger, after Castro

reached as if to procure a gun and opened the driver-side door. Despite the existence of relevant

available evidence, trial counsel failed to argue a self defense or an imperfect self defense on

petitioner’s behalf.

Hernandez now argues that trial counsel’s omission of relevant evidence denied him the

Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel under the principle

established by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685 (1984). For a

cognizable Strickland claim, petitioner must demonstrate that: (1) “counsel made errors so serious

that [he] was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment;”

and (2) “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Id. at 687. Accordingly, petitioner

argues that trial counsel breached the standard of care by failing to develop and present relevant and

available evidence to help establish the reasonableness of petitioner’s conduct. Such evidence

included the pattern of local gang conduct and expert testimony regarding the extent to which prior

exposure to gang-related violence may have influenced petitioner’s behavior. Petitioner argues that

trial counsel’s errors prejudiced his defense under Strickland and caused him to be convicted on

insufficient evidence in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Case 3:05-cv-02093-MHP Document 15 Filed 06/18/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

CONCLUSION

(1) This court finds that petitioner Hernandez’s petition cannot be summarily dismissed

because the allegations in his petition are not vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, patently

frivolous or false. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2243 this court finds that petitioner’s claim requires

an answer from the respondent. The court ORDERS respondent to SHOW CAUSE why the writ

should not be granted.

(2) The clerk of this court shall, by certified mail: (a) serve a copy of this Order and a copy

of petitioner’s petition upon the Attorney General of the State of California; and (b) serve a copy of

this Order upon petitioner and petitioner’s attorneys.

(3) Pursuant to Habeas Local Rule 2254–6(b), respondent shall file an answer with this court

within sixty (60) days of the date of this order. This answer shall show cause why a writ of habeas

corpus should not issue and shall conform in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases and Habeas Local Rule 2254–6(b). 

(4) Pursuant to Habeas Local Rule 2254–6(c), petitioner shall serve and file a traverse within

thirty (30) days after respondent has filed the answer.

(5) This matter shall be deemed submitted as of the date petitioner’s traverse is due. No

hearing will be held unless the court so orders at a later date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/17/2008 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:05-cv-02093-MHP Document 15 Filed 06/18/08 Page 3 of 3