1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JUAN L. GARCIA NAVA, Case No. 24-cv-02808-WHO (PR)

Petitioner, 5 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 6

7 LEANNA LUNDY, Respondent. 8

9 10 INTRODUCTION 11 Petitioner Juan L. Garcia Nava seeks federal habeas relief from his California state 12 conviction for attempted murder. The petition for habeas relief is now before me for 13 review pursuant to

and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 14 Cases. 15 The petition states cognizable claims. Accordingly, on or before July 1, 2025, 16 respondent shall file an answer or a dispositive motion in response to the habeas petition. 17 BACKGROUND 18 In 2023 Garcia Nava was convicted by a Santa Cruz County Superior Court jury of 19 attempted murder, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, assault with a firearm, possession of 20 a firearm by a felon, active participation in a criminal street gang, misdemeanor battery on 21 a peace officer, and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer. People v. Nava, No. D079040, 22

, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. March 30, 2022). The jury found true various 23 sentencing enhancement allegations.

The trial court found true that Nava had a prior 24 serious felony conviction and imposed a sentence of 55 years to life in prison.

His 25 sentence was modified on appeal: “[T]he section 186.22, subdivision (a) gang conviction 26 in count 7 is reversed. The section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) and 12022.53, subdivision 27 (e)(1) enhancements are vacated as to all counts. The 25-year sentence on count 1 is 1 DISCUSSION 2 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 3 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 4 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 5 § 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall 6 “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ 7 should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 8 detained is not entitled thereto.”

. Summary dismissal is appropriate 9 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 10 patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez,

(9th Cir. 1990). 11 As grounds for federal habeas relief, Garcia Nava alleges that the trial court violated 12 his federal constitutional rights by (1) failing to instruct the jury on self-defense as to all 13 counts; (2) failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter due to imperfect self- 14 defense; and (3) admitting prejudicial evidence. He also alleges that there was (4) 15 cumulative error. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 5-7.) When liberally construed, these claims are 16 cognizable and shall proceed. 17 CONCLUSION 18 1. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this order upon the respondent and 19 the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following 20 email addresses: [email protected] and [email protected]. The 21 petition and the exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the 22 Northern District of California. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this Order on 23 petitioner. 24 2. On or before July 1, 2025, respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 25 petitioner, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 26 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on 27 petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 1 || transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 2 3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse 3 || with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the 4 || answer is filed. 5 4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before July 1, 2025, a motion to 6 || dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of 7 || the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner 8 || shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non- 9 || opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file 10 || with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any 11 || opposition is filed. 2 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. 14 6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the 15 || Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the a 16 || Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 3 17 || action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 18 7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will 19 || be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 20 8. The filing fee has been paid. (Dkt. No. 11.) 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: February 26, 2025 YVUde 23 . IAM H. ORRICK 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28