Vines v. Hixon ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROOSEVELT VINES, Case No. 23-cv-05765-SVK 8 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 1 10 KEVIN HIXON, 11 Respondent. 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner at the North Kern State Prison in Delano, California, filed a 14 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sections 2241 and 2254. See Dkt. 1 (the 15 “Petition”). He has paid the filing fee and has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. 16 See Dkt. 5. For the reasons stated below, Respondent is ordered to show cause why the Petition 17 should not be granted. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 A. Background 20 In 2020, Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to a term of 50 years to life in the 21 California Superior Court for the County of Alameda under California Penal Code Sections 136.1, 22 187, 12022.53 and 29800. Petition ¶ 1. He pursued a direct appeal, and the California Supreme 23 Court denied review. Id. ¶ 2. His time to pursue an appeal to the United States Supreme Court 24 has lapsed. Id. ¶ 3. He commenced this action on November 8, 2023. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// B. Standard Of Review 1 A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 2 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 3 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see 4 also Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).1 It “shall . . . award the writ or issue an order 5 directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from 6 the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 7 C. Petitioner’s Claims 8 Petitioner seeks reversal of his conviction on three grounds: 9 1. His Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated when he was convicted of 10 first-degree murder upon an insufficient presentation of evidence. (See Petition at m-2 through m- 11 8.) 12 2. His Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated when the prosecutor engaged 13 in certain misconduct throughout Petitioner’s trial. (See id. at m-9 through m-24.) 14 3. His Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated when his 15 counsel objected to some, but not all, instances of misconduct engaged in by the prosecutor during 16 Petitioner’s trial. (See id. at m-24.) 17 A conviction based upon a presentation of evidence that does not rise to the level of proof 18 “beyond a reasonable doubt” violates an individual’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. 19 See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315-18 (1979). Prosecutorial misconduct during a criminal 20 trial may also violate an individual’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. See Darden v. 21 Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 180-81 (1986). And an attorney’s failure to act reasonably “under 22 prevailing professional norms” may violate an individual’s Sixth Amendment right to effective 23 assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-91 (1984). 24 Thus, when liberally construed, the Petition presents cognizable claims for the violation of 25 26 1 Although Petitioner submits his Petition under both 28 U.S.C. Sections 2241 and 2254 (see 27 Petition at m-1), Section 2254 “is the exclusive vehicle for [his] habeas petition”, because ] Petitioner’s federal constitutional rights and for federal habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the 2 || Court ORDERS Respondent to respond to the Petition. 3 || I. CONCLUSION 4 1. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this Order and a magistrate-judge-consent 5 form upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, 6 || at the following email address: SFAWTParalegals@doj.ca.gov. The Petition and exhibits thereto 7 || are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the United States District Court for the 8 || Northern District of California. 9 2. Respondent shall complete and file a magistrate-judge-consent form by no later than 10 || February 12, 2024. 1] 3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, on or before March 11, 2024, 12 || an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and 13 showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. If Petitioner wishes to respond 14 || to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse (a reply) with the Court and serving it on 15 || Respondent on or before April 10, 2024. 16 4. In lieu of answering the Petition, Respondent may, on or before March 11, 2024, file a i 17 || motion to dismiss the Petition on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Z 18 || Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, 19 || Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non- 20 || opposition on or before April 10, 2024, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 21 Petitioner a reply on or before April 24, 2024. 22 SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: January 11, 2024 24 25 Seen yer Kul SUSAN VAN KEULEN 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28