Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06737/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06737-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUGUSTIN E. RODRIGUEZ, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

T. FELKER, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-6737 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Docket No. 4)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at High

Desert State Prison in Susanville, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. Petitioner

has also filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 4), which

is now GRANTED. This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should

not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted after trial of second degree

murder and use of a firearm in San Mateo County Superior Court and sentenced to a term

of 90 years-to-life in state prison. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California

Court of Appeal and he Supreme Court of California denied Petitioner’s petition for

review. Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on October 30, 2006. 

Case 3:06-cv-06737-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

DISCUSSION

I Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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.” Id. § 2243. 

II Legal Claims

The petition alleges that: 1) Petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the

improper jury instructions issued by the trial court; 2) the trial court erred in admitting

evidence of the facts underlying a prior conviction as evidence of intent; and 3) the trial

court erred in failing to state reasons for “consecutive sentencing to determinate

sentences.” However, the petition has a critical defect: the petition does not mention any

violation of a federal right with regard to any of the claims he wishes to raise, except

claim one, where Petitioner has attached what appear to be state court briefs that mention

federal constitutional error. Although on the court’s form petition, Petitioner has stated

“see p.5 of Attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities” with regard to these

claims, the Court is unable to discern what Petitioner is referring to, as this document

does not appear to have been attached to the petition and what is there does not address

these claims.

A person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court can obtain a federal

writ of habeas corpus 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). In other

words, a writ of habeas corpus is available under § 2254(a) "only on the basis of some

transgression of federal law binding on the state courts." Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d

Case 3:06-cv-06737-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)), cert.

denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). It is unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged

error in the interpretation or application of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S.

62, 67-68 (1991); Engle, 456 U.S. at 119; Peltier v. Wright, 15 F.3d 860, 861-62 (9th

Cir. 1994). Petitioner’s petition must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim

for federal habeas relief. He will be given leave to amend to cure this defect, as set forth

below.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, this action is dismissed with

leave to file an amended petition within thirty (30) days of the date of this order in which

Petitioner presents only claims for violations of his rights under the laws, treaties, or

Constitution of the United States. Each and every such claim must have been presented

to the California Supreme Court before it may be asserted in a federal habeas action. 

The amended petition must contain the caption and civil case number used in this order

and the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure to file an amended

petition by the deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with any orders of the Court within the

time allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. Failure to do so may result in the

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule

41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 12, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06737-JSW Document 5 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 3