Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02918/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02918-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kim Holland
Respondent
Rey B. Reyes
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

REY B. REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM HOLLAND,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02918-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction and sentence in state court.1 

He has paid the filing fee. Because the petition states cognizable claims for relief, a response from 

Respondent is warranted. 

BACKGROUND

In 2010, Petitioner was convicted of murder in Mendocino County Superior Court, and 

sentenced to term of forty years to life in state prison. The California Court of Appeal affirmed 

the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review. The instant federal 

petition followed. 

 

1

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 5.) 

Case 3:15-cv-02918-WHO Document 8 Filed 08/18/15 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

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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). It 

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.” Id. § 2243. 

II. Legal Claims

The petition raises the following claims for relief: (1) Petitioner received ineffective 

assistance of counsel; (2) three jurors committed misconduct, resulting in a violation of his right to 

a fair and impartial jury; and (3) his right to counsel was violated by the trial court’s denial of his 

motions to substitute his attorney. These claims are sufficient to warrant an answer from 

Respondent. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall 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. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this Order, and 

the docket sheet for this case, on Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form in 

accordance with the deadline provided on the form. 

3. Respondent shall also file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety-one

(91) days of the date this Order is issued, 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 

Case 3:15-cv-02918-WHO Document 8 Filed 08/18/15 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

granted. 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 (a reply) with the Court and serving it on Respondent within twenty-eight (28)

days of the date the answer is filed.

4. Respondent may, within ninety-one (91) days of the date this Order is issued, file 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 twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent 

shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any 

opposition is filed.

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of 

Address.” He 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: August 18, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02918-WHO Document 8 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 3