Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01010/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01010-0/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

DAVID LOUIS COSTELLA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

KENNETH CLARK, Warden, and

CALIFORNIA DIRECTOR OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION,

Respondents. /

No. C 08-1010 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, has

filed a 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).

BACKGROUND

A jury convicted petitioner of resident child molestation and lewd and lascivious acts

with a child under fourteen. He was sentenced to prison for eighteen years. Petitioner

unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme

Court of California denied review. His state habeas petitions were 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. §

Case 4:08-cv-01010-PJH Document 2 Filed 03/03/08 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

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

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

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

of the grounds thus specified.” 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) His trial counsel was

ineffective in specified ways; and (2) his ex post facto rights were violated when a new

extended statute of limitations was applied to his case after the previous, shorter,

limitations period had expired. These claims are sufficient to require a response.

On page seven of the petition the question “Do you have an attorney for this

petition?” is answered yes, and the name and address of attorney Peter Goldscheider. On

the other hand, on the “Memorandum of Facts and Law in Support of Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus,” the cover page lists “David Louis Costella[,] Pro Se,” and “C/O Peter F.

Goldscheider, Attorney at Law... .” That is, in the petition the petitioner says he is

represented by counsel, but in the memorandum he is listed as pro se. Because it makes a

difference to internal administrative matters, counsel shall clarify this point.

CONCLUSION 

1. Counsel shall file an appearance or a statement that he does not represent

petitioner within ten days of the date this order is entered. The clerk shall send a copy of

this order to Peter F. Goldscheider, 438 Cambridge Avenue, Suite 250, Palo Alto, CA

Case 4:08-cv-01010-PJH Document 2 Filed 03/03/08 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

94306.

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

attachments thereto on respondents and respondents’ attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty 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. Respondents 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 respondents within thirty days of his receipt of the answer.

4. Respondents 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 respondents file such a motion, petitioner shall file with the court

and serve on respondents an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty days of

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

reply within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

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

respondents by mailing a true copy of the document to respondents’ 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 3, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.08\COSTELLA1010.OSC.wpd 

Case 4:08-cv-01010-PJH Document 2 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 3