ORDER OF SERVICE

Re: Dkt. No. 3

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner Jacob Christian Mullan, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison, Solano, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of rape in the Alameda Superior Court of the State of California. On January 9, 2012, he was sentenced to 16 years in state prison; six years for the underlying offense and ten years due to a gang enhancement. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which on February 11, 2014, denied review of a petition allegedly raising the same claims raised here.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

B. Petitioner's Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claims: that he was denied his right to a fair trial by the misjoinder of defendants; that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the true findings on the gang enhancements; that he was prejudiced by the admission of prison gang evidence, by evidence of other gang "contacts," and by expert opinion evidence on his specific intent; and that his trial was rendered fundamentally unfair by the cumulative effect of the errors at trial. Liberally construed, the claims appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate below by checking one of the two boxes whether you (if you are the party) or the party you represent (if you are an attorney in the case) choose(s) to consent or decline magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Sign this form below your selection.

( ) Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I voluntarily consent to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment. I understand that appeal from the judgment shall be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

OR

( ) Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I decline to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case and I hereby request that this case be reassigned to a United States district judge.