Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06002/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06002-5/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

1

 On January 4, 2010, the Court issued an Order directing

Respondent to file by January 15, 2010 a responsive pleading to the

Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) issued on October 8, 2009. See Doc. ##

22 & 23. The OSC, however, never was served on Respondent. As such,

the Court’s January 4, 2010 Order is hereby VACATED. Respondent is

directed to file a responsive pleading sixty (60) days from the date

of this Order. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISRAEL MORALES,

Petitioner,

 v.

D. K. SISTO, Warden

Respondent.

 /

No. C-07-6002 TEH (PR)

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at California

State Prison in Solano, California, has filed a pro se Petition for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a

judgment of conviction from Santa Clara County Superior Court.1

Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28

U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. ## 20 & 21.

Case 3:07-cv-06002-TEH Document 24 Filed 01/08/10 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

I 

Following his convictions in Santa Clara County Superior

Court of second degree murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle and

illegal possession of a firearm, Petitioner was sentenced to

fifteen-years-to-life in state prison. The California Court of

Appeal affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. People v.

Morales, No. H026508,2005 WL 67098 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2005). 

On March 23, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied his Petition

for Review. Id. Thereafter, Petitioner sought collateral review in

the state superior and appellate courts, which denied relief. 

Pending before this Court is the instant federal Petition for a Writ

of Habeas Corpus. Doc. #1. 

II

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. 

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by alleging 

various claims, including instructional error, juror misconduct,

improper calculation of his time credits and ineffective assistance

of appellate counsel. See Doc. #1. Liberally construed, these

Case 3:07-cv-06002-TEH Document 24 Filed 01/08/10 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

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).

III

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis

(Doc. ## 20 & 21) are GRANTED. 

2. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail 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 sixty (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 thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer.

4. In lieu of an Answer, Respondent may file a Motion to

Case 3:07-cv-06002-TEH Document 24 Filed 01/08/10 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

Dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a Reply

within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any Opposition.

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 also must keep the

Court and all parties informed of any change of address. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 01/07/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.07\Morales-07-6002.osc-2.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-06002-TEH Document 24 Filed 01/08/10 Page 4 of 4