Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02708/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02708-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Madden
Respondent
Luis Medina
Petitioner

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

1

 Petitioner has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

(Docket No. 6.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS MEDINA,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND MADDEN,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 15-2708 NC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Luis Medina, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions from Santa Clara County

Superior Court.1

 Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 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. 

For the reasons stated below, the Court orders Respondent to show cause why the petition

should not be granted.

BACKGROUND 

In 2013, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of sexual penetration of a minor, forcible

child molestation, and child molestation. He was sentenced to a term of 18 years to life. The

California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. 

Case 4:15-cv-02708-HSG Document 8 Filed 09/23/15 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

Petitioner filed an unsuccessful state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. The

instant action was filed on June 1, 2015.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner claims: (1) the prosecutor committed

misconduct, and (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Liberally construed, these

claims are sufficient to warrant an answer from Respondent.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent

form, a copy of this Order, and the petition, and all attachments thereto, on Respondent and

Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. Respondent shall file

his Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form no later than thirty (30) days from the filing

date of this Order.

2. Respondent is directed to file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety

(90) days of the issuance of this order, 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 the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent must file with the

Case 4:15-cv-02708-HSG Document 8 Filed 09/23/15 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

answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been

transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition. 

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

the Court and serving it on Respondent within thirty (30) days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within ninety (90) days, 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

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner must file

with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within

twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent must file with the

Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition is

filed.

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on

Respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner

must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

September 23, 2015

Case 4:15-cv-02708-HSG Document 8 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 3