Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01141/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01141-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE RAMAC No. CIV S-06-1141-MCE-CMK-P

CASTRONUEVO,

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

THOMAS LONG,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding with counsel, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for

a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). On September 11, 2006, the court denied respondent’s motion

to dismiss petitioner’s claims as unexhausted and directed respondent to file an answer to the

petitioner within 30 days. On October 11, 2006, respondent filed a document entitled “Answer

to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” That document, however, does not address the merits of

petitioner’s claims. Rather, respondent presents another procedural defense and argues that all

the claims are procedurally barred due to petitioner’s allege default in state court by not raising

the claims on direct appeal. 

Case 2:06-cv-01141-MCE -CMK Document 19 Filed 05/25/07 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

On June 2, 2006, the court issued an order advising respondent that any answer 1

would have to comply with Rule 5. 

It is not clear why respondent did not raise the procedural bar argument in its 2

motion to dismiss. 

2

Respondent’s October 11, 2006, pleading is not an answer within the meaning of

Rule 5 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Rule 5 requires that an answer must

1

“address the allegations in the petition.” The rule further provides that any procedural defenses,

such as the applicability of a procedural bar, should be asserted in addition to a response to the

merits of the claims. In this case, respondent’s pleading consists only of a procedural defense

and does not address the merits of the allegations in the petition. Accordingly, respondent will 2

be required to file a supplemental answer addressing the merits. Respondent shall not assert any

additional procedural defenses.

As to the merits, petitioner raises two substantive claims. In his Claim 1 and

Claim 2, petition asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal

on his behalf and for failing to correctly advise him of the immigration consequences of his

misdemeanor conviction. In petitioner’s Claim 3, he asserts that the California Court of Appeal

violated his federal constitutional rights by ending his appeal after the California Supreme Court

had ordered that the appeal be allowed to proceed and after the government conceded that the

appeal should be allowed to proceed. Respondent shall address these claims on the merits. 

With respect to the relief requested, petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus

directing that the misdemeanor conviction have no immigration consequence and that his legal

status be restored. In his supplemental answer, respondent shall also address whether this is the

appropriate remedy or whether it would be more appropriate, if relief is warranted, to direct that

petitioner be allowed to appeal the misdemeanor conviction.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01141-MCE -CMK Document 19 Filed 05/25/07 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

3

Upon the filing of supplemental briefing pursuant to this order, the court will

consider the petition in light of all the briefing on file, including respondent’s October 11, 2006,

pleading. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 30 days of the date of this order, respondent shall file a

supplemental answer addressing the merits of petitioner’s claims and the appropriate remedy

should relief be warranted; and

2. Petitioner may file a supplemental traverse within 30 days of service of

respondent’s supplemental answer. 

DATED: May 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01141-MCE -CMK Document 19 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 3