Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05039/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05039-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY JAMES YBARRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. ARAMANT,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-05039-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 2

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction.

1

6. Petitioner’s application 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot because Petitioner paid the filing fee. 

Because the petition states a cognizable basis for federal habeas, a response from Respondent is 

warranted. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of robbery in 2012. Based on both this conviction and 

Petitioner’s prior convictions, the trial court sentenced him to a term of 15 years in state prison. 

After the California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, and the California Supreme Court 

denied a petition for review in 2015, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition. 

 

1

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 3.) 

Case 3:16-cv-05039-EMC Document 6 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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.” Id. § 2243. 

II. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims that: (1) the trial court violated his right to due process by failing to 

instruct the jury that the use of force must be motivated by an intent to steal; (2) the trial court

violated his right to due process by giving the prosecutor’s proposed instruction regarding the 

merchant’s use of force but rejecting the defense’s proposed instruction on the same topic; (3) the 

trial court violated Petitioner’s right to due process by giving an instruction on flight; and (4) the 

jury instructions included an invalid presumption of Petitioner’s guilt, in violation of Petitioner’s 

right to due process. When liberally construed, these claims state cognizable grounds for federal 

habeas relief.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, a copy of this 

Order, and the petition, and all attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the 

Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this Order on 

Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form in 

accordance with the deadline provided on the form. 

Case 3:16-cv-05039-EMC Document 6 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

3. Respondent shall also file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety-one (91)

days of the date this Order is issued, 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 (a reply) with the Court and serving it on Respondent within twenty-eight (28)

days of the date the answer is filed.

4. Respondent may, within ninety-one (91) days of the date this Order is issued, 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 Respondent files such 

a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement 

of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent 

shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any 

opposition is filed.

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of 

Address.” He 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-05039-EMC Document 6 Filed 11/18/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY JAMES YBARRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. ARAMANT,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-05039-JSC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on November 18, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Dated: November 18, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Larry James Ybarra ID: AR1544

Desert View MMCF A2/5L

P.O. Box 970

Adelanto, CA 92301 

Case 3:16-cv-05039-EMC Document 6 Filed 11/18/16 Page 4 of 4