Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01385/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01385-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LENIN ROMERO,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1385 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Jose Lenin Romero, currently incarcerated at the Pleasant Valley State Prison, filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before

the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. His motion for appointment of counsel and in forma pauperis application also

are before the court for its consideration.

BACKGROUND

According to the habeas petition, Romero was convicted in San Francisco County

Superior Court of second degree murder. On August 12, 2005, he was sentenced to 16 years

to life in prison. Romero appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction

and the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. Romero then filed this

action. 

Case 3:08-cv-01385-MHP Document 3 Filed 04/30/08 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

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). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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. 

The petition asserts three federal constitutional claims. First, Romero claims that the

trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary

manslaughter. Although this claim was argued as a state law claim in the petition for review,

a March 27, 2007 supplemental letter brief to the California Supreme Court argued that the

instructional error also violated Romero's federal right to due process. Second, Romero

claims that the jury instructions on second degree felony murder permitted the jury to return

a guilty verdict on the murder charge based on a legally impermissible theory. He alleges

that the instructions and the prosecutor's argument violated his Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights to a jury trial and to due process. See Petition for Review, p. 13. Third,

Romero claims that the trial court's use of the CALJIC 2.03 jury instruction violated his Sixth

and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a jury trial and to due process. Liberally construed, the

federal constitutional claims are cognizable in a federal habeas action.

Much of the argument in the petition for review attached to the habeas petition 

focused on state law errors. The state law claims are dismissed because they provide no

potential for federal habeas relief. A federal court has jurisdiction to issue the writ to remedy

violations of the laws, treaties, or Constitution of the United States, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a),

but not to remedy violations of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). 

Romero requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A district

court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court determines

that the interests of justice so require and such person is financially unable to obtain

Case 3:08-cv-01385-MHP Document 3 Filed 04/30/08 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

representation." 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the

discretion of the district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. The interests of

justice do not require appointment of counsel in this action. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claim for habeas relief and warrants a response. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California.

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before July 18, 2008, an

answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with

the answer a copy of all portions of the state court record that have been previously

transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before August 29, 2008.

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He must keep the court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely

fashion. 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).

6. Petitioner's letter request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

7. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2.) 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2008 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01385-MHP Document 3 Filed 04/30/08 Page 3 of 3