Demacedo v. Koenig

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 DENIS DEMACEDO, Case No. 19-cv-05815-LB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. Re: ECF No. 1 14 CRAIG KOENIG, 15 Defendant. 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 Denis Demacedo, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this action 19 seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 He consented to proceed before a 20 magistrate judge.2 His petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 21 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.3 This 22 order requires the respondent to respond to the petition. 23 24 25

26 1 Pet. – ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 27 2 Consent – ECF No. 3. 1 STATEMENT 2 Following his involvement in an automobile accident that caused the death of three people and 3 the injury of a fourth, a jury in San Mateo County Superior Court convicted Mr. Demacedo on 4 November 24, 2015 of (1) second-degree murder, (2) gross vehicular manslaughter while 5 intoxicated, (3) driving under the influence of alcohol and causing injury, (4) driving with a blood- 6 alcohol content of .08 or higher and causing injury, (5) perjury, and (6) hit and run.4 Overall, the 7 court sentenced Mr. Demacedo to prison terms of 47 years and two months to life in prison (with 8 varying sentences imposed for the underlying counts of conviction).5 9 Mr. Demacedo appealed his conviction, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the 10 California Supreme Court denied his petition for review.6 He then filed this habeas petition. 11 12 ANALYSIS 13 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody 14 pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of 15 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 16 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 17 shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should 18 not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 19 entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 20 Mr. Demacedo alleges that the state court proceedings violated his rights under the Sixth, 21 Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.7 Upon review of his petition, the court cannot say that his 22 claims are patently without merit. The respondents must respond to those claims. 23 24 25 26 4 Pet. – ECF No. 1 at 10–15 (¶¶ 1–2, 8–27). 5 Id. at 11 (¶ 3). 27 6 Id. (¶¶ 4–6). 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, 3 1. The petition warrants a response. 4 2. The clerk must serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition upon the respondent and 5 the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California and include a copy of the 6 “consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction” form. 7 3. The clerk must electronically serve a copy of this order upon the respondent and the 8 || respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email 9 address: SFAWTParalegals @doj.ca.gov. The petition and any exhibits thereto are available via the 10 || Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system for the Northern District of California. 11 5. The respondent must file and serve upon the petitioner, on or before September 28, 2020, 12 an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 5 13 showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. The respondent must file with 14 || the answer a copy of all portions of the court proceedings that have been previously transcribed 15 and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petitioner. 16 6. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the 5 17 court and serving it on the respondent on or before October 28, 2020. 1g 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: July 28, 2020 Lf 21 LAUREL BEELER 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28