Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01841/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01841-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENITO MELCHIORRE,

Petitioner,

 v.

A. A. LAMARQUE,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-01841 SI

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Benito Melchiorre, an inmate at California State Prison in Corcoran, filed this action seeking a 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

Petitionerstates that, in San Mateo County SuperiorCourt, he pled guilty to and was convicted offive

counts of lewd conduct on a child under 14. He was sentenced to a term of sixteen years' imprisonment. He

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Superior Court, which was denied. The California Court

of Appeal and the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review. Petitioner then filed this action.

DISCUSSION

This court may entertain a petition for writ ofhabeas 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 violationofthe 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

Case 3:05-cv-01841-SI Document 3 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 2
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

should not be granted, unlessit appears fromthe 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 presents the issue of whether California Penal Code § 803(g)(3)(A)(iii), as applied to

petitioner’s case, violates the Ex Post Facto clause of the U.S. Constitution, based on the Supreme Court’s

ruling in Stogner v. California , 539 U.S. 607, 123 S. Ct. 2446 (2003). The claim is cognizable in a federal

habeas action and warrants a response from respondent. 

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 AttorneyGeneralofthe State ofCalifornia. The clerk

shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before July 15, 2005, an answer

conforming in allrespects to Rule 5 ofthe 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 court

proceedings that have been previously transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues

presented by the petition. 

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

and serving it on respondent on or before August 12, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2005 S/Susan Illston 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01841-SI Document 3 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2