Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03250/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03250-0/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

RICHARD RANGEL SALAZAR,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DARRELL ADAMS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3250 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docs # 2 & 4) 

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse

Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (“SATF”), has filed a pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also seeks to

proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Santa Clara of two counts of aggravated

sexual assault on a child under 14 and more than 10 years younger than petitioner

(counts 1 & 2) and two counts of forcible lewd and lascivious conduct on a child

under 14 (counts 3 & 4). The jury found true allegations that petitioner had

committed the forcible lewd conduct on more than one victim in conjunction with

counts 3 & 4. On September 24, 2002, petitioner was sentenced to 60 years to

life in state prison. 

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court

of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which on May 12, 2004 denied

review of a petition allegedly raising the same claims raised here

Case 3:05-cv-03250-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/12/06 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

A. 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. 

B. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising four claims: (1)

violation of right to due process by admission of hearsay under the “fresh

complaint doctrine,” (2) violation of right to effective assistance of counsel by

counsel’s failure to make proper objections to petitioner’s juvenile adjudication,

(3) violation of right to due process by trial court’s denial of petitioner’s motion

to dismiss counts 3 & 4; and (4) violation of right to due process by cumulative

impact of errors. Liberally construed, the claims appear cognizable under § 2254

and merit an answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020

(9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas

corpus liberally).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (docs # 2 & 4) is

GRANTED.

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

petition and all attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the

Case 3:05-cv-03250-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/12/06 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

Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of

this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

60 days of the issuance of this order, 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 granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been

transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues

presented by the petition. 

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt

of the answer.

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in

lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion,

petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or

statement of non-opposition within 30 days of receipt of the motion, and

respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days

of receipt of any opposition.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must

be served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s

counsel. Petitioner must also keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 12, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03250-CRB Document 5 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 3