Jacobo v. People of the State of California
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:24-cv-03271
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Jacobo v. Covello, Judge Seeborg allowed Vincent P. Jacobo’s federal conviction challenge to proceed, ordered a response, and granted his fee waiver.
Vincent P. Jacobo’s federal challenge to his state convictions may proceed past initial screening; Patrick Covello must respond as the sole respondent.
What happened
In Jacobo v. Covello, Vincent P. Jacobo asked a federal court to review his state convictions. A state jury convicted him of second-degree murder and illegal firearm possession, and he received a sentence of 70 years to life.
Jacobo claimed that the trial court made an error by giving the jury an instruction about mutual combat. The court found this claim legally eligible for federal review, but it did not decide whether Jacobo should win.
Judge Seeborg ordered Patrick Covello, the sole respondent, to answer by January 20, 2025, or file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. The court also granted Jacobo permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Jacobo v. People of the State of California · No. 3:24-cv-03271
- Richard Seeborg
- Sept. 9, 2024
Background
Vincent P. Jacobo filed a federal petition for habeas relief, a procedure for challenging custody based on an alleged violation of the Constitution or federal law. He challenged convictions entered by a San Francisco County Superior Court jury in 2022 for second-degree murder and illegal possession of a firearm. The jury also found true an allegation that he intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury. The state court imposed a sentence of 70 years to life. The opinion states that Jacobo’s efforts to overturn the convictions in state court were unsuccessful.
Court’s Screening of the Petition
The court reviewed the petition under the federal statute and procedural rule governing petitions challenging state-court convictions. It explained that summary dismissal is appropriate when a petition’s allegations are vague, conclusory, plainly incredible, frivolous, or false.
Jacobo alleged that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on mutual combat. Construing the claim generously, the court held that it was cognizable, meaning legally eligible to proceed in federal habeas review. The court did not decide whether the instruction was erroneous or whether Jacobo was entitled to relief.
Order and Next Steps
The court ordered Patrick Covello, identified as the warden of the prison where Jacobo is housed, to be the sole respondent. The court explained that the custodian with day-to-day control over Jacobo is the appropriate person to respond to the petition.
The court ordered Covello to file an answer by January 20, 2025, explaining why a writ should not be granted, along with relevant portions of the transcribed state trial record. Instead of an answer, Covello may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds by that date. If an answer is filed, Jacobo may file a response within 30 days; if a motion to dismiss is filed, the opinion sets response and reply deadlines.
The court granted Jacobo’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee, terminated all pending motions, and directed the clerk to serve the order and enter Covello as the sole respondent. The order also states that Jacobo must continue prosecuting the case and comply with court orders, warning that failure to do so may lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.