Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02247/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02247-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANDREW ZAVALA, AE8159, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

MARTIN BITER, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-2247 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Dkt. #2)

Petitioner Mark Andrew Zavala, a state prisoner incarcerated at Kern

Valley State Prison, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from Santa Clara County Superior

Court. He also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

BACKGROUND

Following a jury trial, petitioner and co-defendants Scott Alan Hensley

and Jonathan David Rodriguez were convicted of three counts of robbery, and

petitioner and Hensley also were convicted of assault with a firearm. For all of

the crimes of which defendants were convicted, the jury found true criminal

street gang allegations. As to the three counts of robbery, the jury found true that

petitioner had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and that both

Hensley and Rodriguez were principals in the offense and at least one principal

personally and intentionally discharged a firearm. The jury also found true that

petitioner had personally used a firearm in the commission of the assault. 

Case 3:15-cv-02247-CRB Document 3 Filed 07/02/15 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

Hensley admitted a prior conviction within the meaning of California’s 

three strikes law, a prior serious felony conviction and two prior prison term

allegations. Rodriguez admitted a prior prison term allegation.

On April 26, 2010, the trial court sentenced petitioner to a total prison

term of 33 years, Hensley to a total prison term of 31 years and Rodriguez to a

total prison term of 22 years. 

Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court

of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which on February 11, 2014

denied review of a petition allegedly raising the same claims raised here. On

October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari review.

DISCUSSION

A. 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. 

B. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising several claims,

including juror misconduct, instructional error, prejudicial denial of motion to

bifurcate trial and denial of right to confront witnesses. Liberally construed, the

claims appear cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent. 

See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must

construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

Case 3:15-cv-02247-CRB Document 3 Filed 07/02/15 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

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. #2) is

GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall serve 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. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

60 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. 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 with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt

of the answer.

4. Respondent 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 respondent files such a motion,

petitioner must serve and file an opposition or statement of non-opposition not

more than 28 days after the motion is served and filed, and respondent must serve

and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14 days after the opposition is

served and filed.

/

Case 3:15-cv-02247-CRB Document 3 Filed 07/02/15 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

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

be served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s

counsel. Petitioner must also keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 2, 2015 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.15\Zavala, M.15-2247.osc.wpd

Case 3:15-cv-02247-CRB Document 3 Filed 07/02/15 Page 4 of 4