Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03023/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-03023-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

MICHAEL PITTO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-03023 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, Michael Pitto, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of, inter alia, transporting methamphetamine and

possessing methamphetamine, and also found true the related enhancement that he had been

armed in the commission of those offenses within the meaning of Penal Code § 12022 (“Section

12022”). Petitioner was sentenced to 18 years and 8 months in state prison in connection with

his convictions and enhancement findings. This term included a four year sentence imposed in

connection with the arming enhancement that accompanied the felony charge of transporting

methamphetamine. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison in

Coalinga, California.

LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner seeks habeas relief and challenges the enhancement finding made pursuant to

Section 12022 and the related four-year portion of his sentence on the grounds that they are 

Case 5:09-cv-03023-LHK Document 9 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

founded on a deprivation of his federal constitutional rights under Article I, §§ 9, 10 and the

Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Petitioner contends

that the trial court’s instructions dispensed with key components of the “faciliative nexus”

requirement that inhered in Section 12022. Liberally construed, the claims appear potentially

colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. The Clerk shall serve by certified 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.

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within 60 days of

the date 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 issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on

Petitioner a copy of all portions of the administrative record that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented by the petition.

3. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:09-cv-03023-LHK Document 9 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 2