Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07309/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-07309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Susan Perry
Respondent
Darryl Keith Phillips
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DARRYL KEITH PHILLIPS,

Petitioner,

v.

SUSAN PERRY,

Respondent.

Case No. 17-cv-07309-WHO (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Dkt. No. 2

INTRODUCTION 

Petitioner Darryl Keith Phillips seeks federal habeas relief from his state 

convictions. The petition for such relief has been reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and has been found to state cognizable 

claims. Accordingly, on or before May 7, 2018, respondent shall file an answer or 

dispositive motion in response to the habeas petition. 

BACKGROUND 

According to the petition, in 2014, a San Mateo County Superior Court jury found 

Phillips guilty of felony elder abuse, felony falsification of a document to be used in 

evidence, and misdemeanor obstruction of an officer in the course of her duties. Prior 

strike allegations were found true by the jury. Based on the verdicts and findings, Phillips 

Case 3:17-cv-07309-WHO Document 8 Filed 03/05/18 Page 1 of 4
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

was sentenced to 9 years and 8 months in state prison. 

Phillips’s attempts to overturn his convictions in state court were unsuccessful.1 

This federal habeas petition followed. 

DISCUSSION 

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). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Phillips alleges (1) he was denied a fair bail 

hearing because of the acts of various state actors; (2) the prosecutor committed 

misconduct; (3) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance; (4) appellate counsel 

rendered ineffective assistance; and (5) his sentence is unconstitutional. 

 Claim 1, and all claims related to Phillips’s bail, are DISMISSED. The custody 

imposed by the state court’s bail order was rendered moot by Phillips’s criminal 

convictions and sentence. He can now challenge only the custody resulting from his 

convictions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

 The remaining claims are cognizable on federal habeas review, when liberally 

construed. 

 

1 With one exception. The state appellate court corrected “a conceded error in the 

calculation of Phillips’s presentence custody credits.” People v. Phillips, No. A142990, 

2016 WL 4366771 at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2016). 

Case 3:17-cv-07309-WHO Document 8 Filed 03/05/18 Page 2 of 4
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

CONCLUSION 

 1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments 

thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of 

California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

 2. On or before May 7, 2018, respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

petitioner, 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 

petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 

petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been 

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

 3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse 

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the 

answer is filed. 

 4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before May 7, 2018, a motion to 

dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 

shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of nonopposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file 

with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any 

opposition is filed. 

 5. 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. 

 6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the 

Court and respondent 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).

Case 3:17-cv-07309-WHO Document 8 Filed 03/05/18 Page 3 of 4
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

 7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will 

be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 

 8. Phillips’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED. 

 9. The Clerk shall terminate Dkt. No. 2. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 5, 2018

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-07309-WHO Document 8 Filed 03/05/18 Page 4 of 4