Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00849/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00849-0/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)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

ROBERTO ANTONIO MENDOZA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

S. FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent. /

No. C 15-0849 NJV (PR)

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT

TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County, which is in

this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has also paid the

filing fee and consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge. 

BACKGROUND

A jury convicted petitioner of seven counts of sexual acts with a child ten years of

age or younger and five counts of lewd acts with a child under the age of fourteen. He was

sentenced to 104 year to life in prison. Petitioner states that his petition to the California

Supreme Court was denied. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

Case 3:15-cv-00849-VC Document 3 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 4
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

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.

1970)). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject

to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102,

1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) there was insufficient

evidence to support the multiple findings of sexual act with a child (§ 288.7); (2) there were

improper jury instructions; (3) the trial court improperly admitted hearsay statements; (4)

there was improper admission of uncharged misconduct; (5) there was insufficient evidence

of a lewd act presented at the preliminary hearing for one of the convictions that petitioner

was not properly put on notice in violation of due process; (6) he was improperly

sentenced; and (7) trial counsel was ineffective if any claims were forfeited due to counsel’s

actions. Liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

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

attachments thereto and a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form on 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 fifty-six (56)

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

Case 3:15-cv-00849-VC Document 3 Filed 03/16/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

the court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight (28) 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, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the

date this order is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the court and serve

on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of

receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply

within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.

4. 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 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). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00849-VC Document 3 Filed 03/16/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

ROBERTO ANTONIO MENDOZA,

Petitioner,

v.

S. FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent. /

No. 1:15-CV-0849 NJV

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on March 16, 2015, I served a true and correct copy of

the attached by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person listed below, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail.

Roberto Antonio Mendoza 

CDCR # AH-2211 

Pleasant Valley State Prison 

A3-215 

P.O. Box 8500 

Coalinga, CA 93210 

Dated: March 16, 2015

 Linn Van Meter

Administrative Law Clerk to the

Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

Case 3:15-cv-00849-VC Document 3 Filed 03/16/15 Page 4 of 4