United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2021

Bennett v. Lynch

Bennett v. Lynch
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided January 4, 2021
Bennett v. Lynch

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JABRIE BENNETT, Case No. 20-cv-05675-WHO

Petitioner,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v.

Re: Dkt. No. 1

JEFF LYNCH,

Respondent.

Petitioner Jabrie Bennett, a prisoner of the State of California, filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. His petition sets forth one claim challenging the constitutionality of his conviction in state court: violation of Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection when the trial court denied his motion pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), regarding a dismissed Black juror.

This claim, when liberally construed, is cognizable and potentially meritorious. Good cause appearing, Respondent is hereby ordered to show cause why the petitioner should not be granted.

To facilitate resolution of this case, it is further ordered as follows: 1. Petitioner shall serve Respondent and 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 serve on Petitioner, within 60 days of service of the petition and this order, an 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.

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 within 30 days of the date the answer is filed.

4. 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 14 with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within 14 days of the date any 15 opposition is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated: January 4, 2021 .

Iham H. Orrick United States District Judge

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.