Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05424/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05424-0/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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\Santana424osc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS SANTANA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5424 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court orders

Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea in Sonoma Superior Court to attempted

murder and witness intimidation. Petitioner admitted the allegations of great bodily

injury and criminal street gang enhancements concerning the attempted murder count. On

December 17, 2004, petitioner was sentenced to twenty-six years and eight months in

state prison. On direct appeal, the state appellate court directed the trial court to amend

the abstract of judgment concerning a separate burglary charge and affirmed the judgment

on January 16, 2007. The instant federal habeas petition was filed on October 24, 2007. 

Case 5:07-cv-05424-JF Document 4 Filed 04/10/08 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 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). 1

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\Santana424osc 2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district 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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court 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. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner alleges the following claims for habeas relief: (1) the trial court

improperly sentenced Petitioner to a full strength consecutive sentence on the witness

intimidation count; and (2) the imposition of the upper term sentence violated Blakely v.

Washington and Petitioner’s federal constitutional right to a jury trial. Liberally 1

construed, Petitioner’s claims are sufficient to require a response. The Court orders

Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all 

attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of

the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty

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 criminal proceedings that have been transcribed previously and

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

Case 5:07-cv-05424-JF Document 4 Filed 04/10/08 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\Santana424osc 3

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

with the Court and serving a copy on Respondent within thirty days of his receipt of the

answer.

3. 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 thirty days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and

serve on Petitioner a reply within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper

captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” Petitioner 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 4/8/08 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05424-JF Document 4 Filed 04/10/08 Page 3 of 3