1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAMONE HAYNES, Case No. 25-cv-03670-WHO (PR)

Petitioner, 8 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; v. 9 INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK 10 SIRCOYA M. WILLIAMS,

Respondent. 11

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Petitioner Damone Haynes seeks federal habeas relief under

from 15 his California state convictions for murder and carjacking. The amended petition for such 16 relief is now before me for review pursuant to

and Rule 4 of the Rules 17 Governing Section 2254 Cases. 18 The first amended petition states cognizable claims. Accordingly, on or before 19 February 2, 2026, respondent shall file an answer or a dispositive motion in response to 20 the amended habeas petition (Dkt. No. 10). The amended petition discloses that Haynes 21 was convicted in 2021 and that the state supreme court issued its denial in 2023. (Am. 22 Pet., Dkt. No. 10 at 1 and 3.) He filed the current petition two years later, in 2025, which 23 is beyond the one-year filing limit imposed by AEDPA. If respondent concludes that this 24 habeas action is untimely, she may wish to file a motion to dismiss the action on such 25 grounds. 26 The Clerk shall enter Sircoya M. Williams, the warden of the prison in which 27 petitioner is housed, as the sole respondent in this action. Williams is the sole proper 1 person who can produce “the body” of the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982

, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Guerra v. Meese,

(D.C. Cir. 3 1986)). 4 The filing fee has been paid. (Dkt. No. 5.) 5 BACKGROUND 6 In 2021 Haynes was convicted by an Alameda County Superior Court jury of 7 murder, carjacking, and possession of a firearm by a felon. People v. Haynes, No. 8 A163965,

, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2023). The jury also found 9 true sentencing enhancements for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm 10 causing death, personally using a firearm, and personally inflicting great bodily injury.

11 A sentence of 50 years to life was imposed. (Am. Pet., Dkt. No. 10 at 1.) His attempts at 12 overturning his convictions in state court were unsuccessful. This federal habeas petition 13 followed. 14 DISCUSSION 15 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 16 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 17 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall 19 “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ 20 should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 21 detained is not entitled thereto.”

. Summary dismissal is appropriate 22 only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or 23 patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez,

(9th Cir. 1990). 24 As grounds for federal habeas relief, Haynes claims that (1) there was insufficient 25 evidence to support his carjacking conviction, which means that this and his felony murder 26 conviction cannot stand; and (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. (Am. 27 Pet., Dkt. No. 10 at 5; Dkt. No. 10-1 at 3-4.) When liberally construed, these claims are 1 Haynes apparently raised his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by way of a 2 state habeas petition, which was denied by the state appellate court in an opinion separate 3 from its direct appeal decision. Haynes,

, at *1 n. 2. Haynes attached 4 his petition for review to the state supreme court to his federal petition. It contains two 5 claims not raised in the federal petition itself. If Haynes means to include these two claims 6 in his federal habeas action, he must file an amended petition within 30 days from the date 7 of this Order indicating this. 8 CONCLUSION 9 1. The Clerk shall serve electronically a copy of this Order upon the respondent and 10 the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California, at the following 11 email addresses: [email protected] and [email protected]. The 12 amended petition (Dkt. No. 10) and the exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic 13 Case Filing System for the Northern District of California. The Clerk shall serve by mail a 14 copy of this Order on petitioner. 15 2. On or before February 2, 2026, respondent shall file with the Court and serve 16 on petitioner, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 17 Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted 18 based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve 19 on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been 20 transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 21 3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a 22 traverse with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of 23 the date the answer is filed. 24 4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, on or before February 2, 2026, 25 a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes 26 to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, 27 petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of 1 || file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any 2 || opposition is filed. 3 5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be 4 || served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. 5 6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must 6 || keep the Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with 7 || the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 8 || action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 9 7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of 10 || time will be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 11 8. The filing fee has been paid. (Dkt. No. 5.) IT IS SO ORDERED. E 13 || Dated: September 23, 2025

AM H. ORRI 8 15 United States District Judge 2 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28