1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 IAN VICKREY, Case No. 24-cv-09428-EKL

7 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 8

9 JEFF MACOMBER, Respondent. 10

11 12 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

. Petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County, which is in this district, so 14 venue is proper here. See

(d). He has paid the filing fee. ECF No. 6. 15 BACKGROUND 16 A jury found petitioner guilty of three counts of committing a lewd act on a child and 17 found true the enhancement allegations of multiple victims. People v. Vickrey, No. A162939, 18

, at *4 (Cal. Ct. App. April 10, 2024). Petitioner was sentenced to a prison term 19 of 25 years to life.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.

. The 20 California Supreme Court denied review. Petition at 2-3. 21 DISCUSSION 22 Standard of Review 23 This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 24 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 25 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

(a); Rose v. 26 Hodges,

(1975). 27 A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show 1 or person detained is not entitled thereto.”

. Summary dismissal is appropriate 2 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently 3 frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez,

(9th Cir. 1990) (quoting 4 Blackledge v. Allison,

(1977)). 5 Legal Claims 6 As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his rights were violated 7 when an excused juror was erroneously seated, the selected juror was excused, and counsel was 8 ineffective for failing to present certain arguments; (2) the trial court erred in admitting certain 9 evidence from his computer; and (3) the trial court issued an erroneous jury instruction. Liberally 10 construed, these claims are sufficient to require a response. 11 CONCLUSION 12 1. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon respondent and 13 respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following email 14 addresses: [email protected]. Respondent can view the petition on the electronic 15 docket (ECF No. 1). The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order on petitioner. 16 2. No later than sixty days from the date of service, respondent shall file with the 17 Court and serve on petitioner an Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules 18 Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted 19 based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the Answer and serve on 20 petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been transcribed and 21 that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 22 3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse 23 with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty days of the date the Answer is 24 filed. 25 4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 26 answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 27 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, it is due sixty days from the date this order is 1 opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty days of receipt of the motion, and 2 || respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of receipt 3 of any opposition. 4 5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on 5 respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. It is petitioner’s 6 || responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court and respondent informed of 7 any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do 8 so will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of 9 Civil Procedure 41(b). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: February 11, 2025 12

13 14 Eumi K. Lee 5 United States District Judge 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28