Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08318/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08318-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph Diaz
Defendant
Raymond Edward Wong
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

RAYMOND EDWARD WONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-08318-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. His petition sets forth the following 

claims challenging the constitutionality of petitioner’s conviction in state court: (1) violation of 

petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment rights based on impeachment evidence regarding “a prior 

conviction that had nothing to do with honesty”; (2) violation of petitioner’s Fifth, Sixth, and 

Fourteenth Amendment rights based on “the admission of inflammatory impeachment evidence 

after petitioner testified”; and (3) violation of petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by 

allowing the introduction of “evidence of his possession of automatic weapons and explosives to 

impeach his testimony.” (Dkt. No. 2 at 6-7.)

These claims, when liberally construed, are cognizable and potentially meritorious. Good 

cause appearing, Respondent is hereby ordered to show cause why the petition should not be 

granted.

In order to expedite the resolution of this case, it is further ordered as follows:

1. The Clerk shall serve respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of 

the State of California, with a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments. 

2. Consistent with Habeas Local Rule 2254-6, Respondent shall file with the court and 

Case 3:19-cv-08318-JSC Document 5 Filed 01/06/20 Page 1 of 2
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

serve on petitioner, within 60 days of service of the petition and 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 

shall file with the 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 shall do so by filing a traverse with the 

court and serving it on Respondent within 30 days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within 60 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 shall file with the court and 

serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 30 days of the date the 

motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within 14 

days of the date any opposition is filed.

4. The Clerk shall send a notice to petitioner and respondent regarding consenting to the 

jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2020

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-08318-JSC Document 5 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 2