Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06339/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06339-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MITCHELL ANDREW CARAVAVO,

Petitioner, 

 v.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-6339 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, has

filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the

filing fee. 

Venue is proper because the conviction was obtained in Santa Clara County, which is in

this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

STATEMENT

A jury convicted petitioner of burglary and terrorist threats. With sentencing

enhancements, he was sentenced to nineteen years, eight months in prison. His conviction was

affirmed on direct appeal by the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court

denied review. Petitioner also filed state habeas petitions.

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

Case 3:06-cv-06339-WHA Document 2 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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

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. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) the trial court’s refusal to

instruct on misdemeanor assault violated his right to present a defense; (2) the trial court

violated his right to self-representation; (3) there was insufficient evidence to support the

convictions; (4) his counsel was ineffective; (5) Section 422 of the California Penal Code,

having to do with terrorist threats, is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague; (6) the trial court

violated the separation of powers doctrine under both the federal and state constitutions; (7) the

prosecutor commented on his failure to testify; (8) the cumulative effect of the errors amounted

to a violation of due process; and (9) the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. 

Federal habeas relief is only available for violations of federal law, not state law. 

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). This is also true of claimed violations of state

constitutional provisions. Hinman v. McCarthy, 676 F.2d 343, 349 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1982). As a

result, petitioner’s contention in issue six that there was a violation of the state constitution’s

separation of powers provisions is not grounds for relief here. Furthermore, the federal

separation of powers doctrine does not apply to the states, so he also has no federal grounds for

relief. See Chromiak v. Field, 406 F.2d 502, 505 (9th Cir. 1969). Issue six will be dismissed. 

The other claims are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Issue six, regarding separation of powers, is DISMISSED.

2. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of

Case 3:06-cv-06339-WHA Document 2 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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

service 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 the

court and serving it on respondent within thirty days of service of the answer.

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer,

as set forth in 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 15 days of receipt of any opposition.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Papers intended to be

filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk rather than to the undersigned. Petitioner also

must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk

headed “Notice of Change of Address,” and comply with any orders of the court within the time

allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. 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: October 25 , 2006. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.06\CARAVAVO339.OSC

Case 3:06-cv-06339-WHA Document 2 Filed 10/26/06 Page 3 of 3