Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05513/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05513-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIEZER SALCEDO,

Petitioner,

v.

F. B. HAWS,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-5513 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Eliezer Salcedo, currently incarcerated at the state prison in Lancaster, California,

filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now

before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

According to the habeas petition, Salcedo was convicted in San Francisco County

Superior Court of one count of second degree murder, four counts of attempted murder, one

count of discharging a gun at an inhabited dwelling, and one count of being a felon in

possession of a firearm. He also was found to have personally discharged a firearm in the

murder and attempted murders. On February 4, 2005, he was sentenced to 68 years to life in

prison. 

Salcedo appealed. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction in 2005,

and the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review in 2006. He then filed this

action.

Case 3:07-cv-05513-MHP Document 3 Filed 03/10/08 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

2

DISCUSSION

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). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

The petition alleges two claims: First, Salcedo claims his right to due process was

violated because the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions for the attempted

murders of Pablo Ojeda, Veronica Martinez, and Barbie Sanchez (counts 3, 4, and 5) in that

there was insufficient evidence of intent to kill. Second, he claims that the jury instruction

on the intent to kill was erroneous and violated his right to due process. Liberally construed,

the allegations state cognizable claims for due process violations. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states cognizable claims for habeas relief and warrants a response. 

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

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California.

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before May 9, 2008, 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 must file with

the answer a copy of all portions of the state court record that have been previously

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

Case 3:07-cv-05513-MHP Document 3 Filed 03/10/08 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

3

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before June 13, 2008.

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 7, 2008 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:07-cv-05513-MHP Document 3 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 3