Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05880/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05880-0/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

RUDOLFO HOPE BERGARA,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL MARTEL, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-5880 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Rudolfo H. Bergara, a California prisoner incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison,

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. His request that mail be sent to his mother rather than to him in prison

also is before the court for consideration. 

BACKGROUND

According to the habeas petition, Bergara was convicted in Santa Clara County

Superior Court of several crimes against a minor and several sentence enhancement

allegations were found true. On September 29, 2006, he was sentenced to 60 years to life in

prison consecutive to a term of 48 years and four months in prison. He appealed. The

California Court of Appeal affirmed his conviction. The California Supreme Court granted

his petition for review, held his case, and then dismissed it in 2008. He then filed this action. 

Case 3:09-cv-05880-EMC Document 2 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 4
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. Review of The Petition

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 the following claims: (1) petitioner's right to due process was

violated because the evidence was insufficient to support the determination under California

Penal Code § 12022.7 that petitioner personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim;

(2) petitioner's right to due process was violated because the court failed to give the

requested jury unanimity instruction, and the jury could have relied on a legally improper

theory to find true the great bodily injury enhancement allegations, (3) petitioner's right to

due process was violated because the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction on

count 6, (4) petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of trial

counsel when counsel opted not to have the jury instructed on a lesser-included offense for

count 7, and (5) petitioner was denied his rights under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation

Clause when the defense was prohibited from impeaching two witnesses with evidence that

they were on probation. Liberally construed, the allegations are cognizable in a federal

habeas action and warrant a response. 

B. Request That Court Mail Be Delivered Other Than To Petitioner

Bergara's petition was mailed to the court by an attorney who stated that he was filing

the petition on Bergara's behalf, but that Bergara would be representing himself in the action. 

In the letter, counsel requested that documents from the court that referred to or contained a

Case 3:09-cv-05880-EMC Document 2 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 4
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

description of the charges against Bergara be sent to his mother in Milpitas "for reasons of

personal safety." Petition attach., 12/10/09 letter.

The court needs more information to consider this very unusual request. The court

will accept (for purposes of this request) the representation that petitioner has some safety

concerns based on the nature of his offenses, but the court has serious concerns that

petitioner's proposal is knowingly made and is workable. With very few exceptions, second

and successive petitions are not allowed; this almost certainly will be his only habeas

petition, and any misstep in this action by him or anyone helping him may end all collateral

review opportunities in federal court. Further, prison conditions can change without notice. 

Prisoners' visiting and telephone privileges occasionally are disrupted or unavailable. Also,

prisoners occasionally are moved to different facilities. These unpredictable circumstances

of imprisonment make it even more difficult for the pro se petitioner who is responsible for

complying with deadlines, preparing his filings, personally signing those briefs, and doing

research in support those briefs. 

Accordingly, no later than May 21, 2010, petitioner must file a declaration explaining

specifically how he plans to litigate this action if mail from the court and respondent's

counsel is sent to him in care of his mother, rather than at the prison. The declaration must

be signed by petitioner, and the court will not accept a declaration from his mother or the

attorney. Until the court receives that declaration and acts on it, mail will be sent to

petitioner in prison. 

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 July 23, 2010, an

answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

Case 3:09-cv-05880-EMC Document 2 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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.

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 August 27, 2010. 

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).

6. The clerk will mail a copy of this order to petitioner at these two addresses: 

Rudolfo H. Bergara Rudolfo H. Bergara

CDCR # F44599 c/o Esperanza Bergara

Mule Creek State Prison 325 Valmy Street

P.O. Box 409040 Milpitas, CA 95035

Ione, CA 95640

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 22, 2010 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:09-cv-05880-EMC Document 2 Filed 04/23/10 Page 4 of 4