1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMES ROLAND HENDERSON, BH2947, Case No. 21-cv-03799-SK (PR)

8 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v.

10 JEFF LYNCH, Acting Warden, (ECF Nos. 2 & 4) 11 Respondent.

12 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison, Sacramento (SAC), has 13 filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

challenging a conviction 14 and sentence from Santa Cruz County Superior Court. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma 15 pauperis (IFP) under

. 16 The petition is properly before the undersigned for initial review because Petitioner has 17 consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to

(c). 18 BACKGROUND 19 Petitioner was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder and found true the 20 special circumstance that Petitioner committed multiple murders. At the conclusion of a sanity 21 trial, the jury determined that Petitioner was same when he committed the murders. On September 22 11, 2018, the superior court sentenced Petitioner to two consecutive terms of life without the 23 possibility of parole, imposed various fines and fees, and ordered restitution. Petitioner appealed. 24 On December 17, 2020, the California Court of Appeal struck a parole revocation fine and 25 otherwise affirmed the judgment of the superior court. 26 On March 10, 2021, the California Supreme Court denied review. 27 On May 20, 2021, Petitioner filed in this Court the instant petition for a writ of habeas 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Standard of Review 3 This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 4 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 5 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

(a). 6 It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the 7 writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 8 detained is not entitled thereto.”

§ 2243. 9 B. Claims 10 Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising several claims, including prejudicial 11 instructional error, prejudicial admission and exclusion of evidence, and ineffective assistance of 12 counsel. Liberally construed, the claims appear arguably cognizable under § 2254 and merit an 13 answer from Respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho,

(9th Cir. 2001) (federal 14 courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally). 15 CONCLUSION 16 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 17 1. Petitioner’s request to proceed IFP (ECF Nos. 2 &4) is GRANTED. 18 2. The clerk shall serve electronically (1) a copy of this order and (2) a notice of 19 assignment of prisoner case to a United States magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate 20 judge jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form (requesting that respondent consent or 21 decline to consent within 28 days of receipt of service) upon Respondent and Respondent’s 22 attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email address: 23 [email protected]. The petition and the exhibits thereto are available via the 24 Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of California. The clerk shall serve by 25 mail a copy of this order on Petitioner. 26 3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within 60 days of the 27 issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 1 Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state 2 || trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the 3 issues presented by the petition. 4 If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the 5 court and serving it on Respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the answer. 6 4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 7 answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 8 || 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner must serve and file an opposition or 9 statement of non-opposition not more than 28 days after the motion is served and filed, and 10 || Respondent must serve and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14 days after the opposition 11 is served and filed. 12 5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on 5 13 Respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must also 14 || keep the Court and all parties informed of any change of address. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: June 9, 2021 . . 3 17 Atti ow 8 SALLIE United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28