Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03288/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03288-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesse Joseph Jimenez
Petitioner
Stuart Sherman
Respondent
The People
Respondent

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 

JESSE JOSEPH JIMENEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

STUART SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-03288-WHO (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Dkt. No. 2

INTRODUCTION 

 Petitioner Jesse Joseph Jimenez 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, respondent shall file an answer or dispositive motion in response to 

the habeas petition on or before February 22, 2016. 

BACKGROUND 

According to the petition, in 2012, a Santa Clara County Superior Court jury 

convicted Jimenez of committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 

(Cal. Penal Code § 288(a)), and of annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18 (id. 

§ 647.6(c)(2)). He received a sentence of 85 years-to-life in state prison. 

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 

Case 3:15-cv-03288-WHO Document 7 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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, Jimenez alleges that (1) there was insufficient 

evidence that he annoyed or molested a child under the age of 18; (2) the trial court failed 

to answer a jury question with sufficient clarity; (3) prejudicial evidence regarding his 

parole conditions was admitted; (4) the trial court gave incorrect instructions on the 

elements of Penal Code § 288(a); (5) the trial court gave incorrect jury instructions and 

then failed to correct this instructional error in its response to a jury question; (6) the trial 

court gave incorrect instructions on unanimity; (7) there was prosecutorial misconduct; 

(8) the trial court failed to address the jury’s confusion about the prohibition on 

considering punishment and penalty; (9) the trial court gave an improper instruction to a 

deadlocked jury; (10) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance; and (11) there was 

cumulative error. When liberally construed, these claims are cognizable on federal habeas 

review. 

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. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90) 

days of the date this order is filed, 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. 

Case 3:15-cv-03288-WHO Document 7 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 3
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

 4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this 

order is filed, 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 non-opposition 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).

 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. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED. 

 9. The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 2. 

 10. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Stuart Sherman, the warden of 

the prison in which petitioner is housed, is the sole respondent in this action. Petitioner 

erroneously named as respondent “The People.” Sherman is the sole proper respondent in 

this action, as he is the custodian having day-to-day control over petitioner, the only person 

who can produce “the body” of the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 

379 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 19, 2015

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03288-WHO Document 7 Filed 11/19/15 Page 3 of 3