Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04095/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04095-0/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

RUSSELL FRANKLIN SCHROEDER,

Petitioner,

 v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, JR, in his capacity as

head of the California Department of

Corrections,

Respondent. /

No. C 03-04095 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 Petitioner Russell Schroeder, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the

County of Santa Clara of four counts of committing a lewd act and one count of exhibiting

harmful matter. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 12 years. 

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the Sixth District Court of Appeal

of California and with the Supreme Court of California. Petitioner filed his petition for writ of

habeas corpus in this Court on September 8, 2003 and asked this Court to hold his petition in

abeyance while he exhausted his state remedies. The Court granted Petitioner’s request to hold

his petition in abeyance on September 17, 2003. Petitioner then filed an amended petition for

writ of habeas corpus on August 31, 2004.

Case 3:03-cv-04095-JSW Document 6 Filed 04/29/05 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

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard.

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). It

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). 

B. Petitioner’s Legal Claims.

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claim: that

application of Evidence Code § 1108, on which the trial court relied to admit evidence of

criminal disposition, violates the Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution. Liberally construed,

the claims appear potentially colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit an answer from

Respondents.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. Petitioner shall serve by certified mail a copy of this Order and the petition and

all attachments thereto upon Respondent.

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within 60 days of

the date 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 issued. 

Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the

administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

Case 3:03-cv-04095-JSW Document 6 Filed 04/29/05 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

3. 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 30 days of his receipt of the answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04095-JSW Document 6 Filed 04/29/05 Page 3 of 3