Fischer v. Lynch

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Fischer v. Lynch

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 BRUCE FISCHER, Case No. 25-cv-02619-RMI 9 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 10 v. Re: Dkt. No. 1 11 JEFF LYNCH, 12 Respondent. 13 14 Petitioner, a state prisoner, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254

. For 15 the reasons that follow, the court orders respondent to show cause why the petition should not be 16 granted. 17 BACKGROUND 18 According to the petition, on July 23, 2021, petitioner pled no contest to three counts of 19 Lewd or Lascivious Act on a Child by Force, Violence, Duress, Menace and Fear, in violation of 20 P.C. 288(b)(1). He was then sentenced to a term of twenty-four years in prison—eight years for 21 each of the three counts to which he pled no contest. In 2023, the California Court of Appeal, Sixth 22 Appellate District, denied petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 2024, the California 23 Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition. Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on March 24 18, 2025. 25 DISCUSSION 26 A. Standard of Review 27 This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 1 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 2254

(a); Rose v. 2 Hodges,

423 U.S. 19, 21

(1975). 3 A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show 4 cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant 5 or person detained is not entitled thereto.”

28 U.S.C. § 2243

. Summary dismissal is appropriate 6 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently 7 frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez,

908 F.2d 490, 491

(9th Cir. 1990) (quoting 8 Blackledge v. Allison,

431 U.S. 63, 75-76

(1977)). 9 B. Petitioner’s Claims 10 Petitioner claims that he was denied his federal constitutional right to due process under 11 the Sixth Amendment due to trial counsel’s ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel 12 (1) advised petitioner to accept an inadvisable plea offer, (2) failed to investigate or inform 13 petitioner of the disadvantages of the plea agreement which trial counsel urged petitioner to 14 accept, and (3) incompetently negotiated a plea agreement which subjected the petitioner to cruel 15 and unusual punishment. 16 Petitioner has stated cognizable claims for relief. The court orders respondent to show 17 cause why the petition should not be granted as to these three claims. 18 CONCLUSION 19 The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all attachments 20 thereto (dkt. 1) upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the 21 State of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 22 Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of the date 23 this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 24 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall 25 file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the underlying state criminal 26 record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues 27 presented by the petition. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a 1 filed. 2 Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set 3 || forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 4 within sixty days of the date this order is filed. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall 5 file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 6 twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and 7 serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is filed. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: August 20, 2025

a ROBERT M. ILLMAN 13 United States Magistrate Judge © 15 16

= 17

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

Reference

Status
Unknown