Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04567/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04567-0/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 Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Rivas04567_osc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL RIVAS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

THOMAS FELKER, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-04567 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California inmate at the High Desert State Prison in Susanville,

filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging his state conviction. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner pleaded no contest to one count of

voluntary manslaughter (Cal. Pen. Code § 192, subd. (a)) and the use of a firearm

(Cal. Pen. Code § 12022.5). Petitioner claims that his negotiated plea included the

dismissal of a murder charge and enhancement, and set a cap of his sentence to

twenty-one years while maintaining the judge’s discretion to sentence him to a lower

Case 5:06-cv-04567-JW Document 8 Filed 06/07/07 Page 1 of 3
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 Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Rivas04567_osc.wpd 2

term. After considering aggravating and mitigating factors during the sentencing

hearing, the court imposed upper terms for both charges, for a total term of twentyone years in state prison. 

Petitioner claims that he exhausted his state judicial remedies, and that his

direct appeal was denied by the California Supreme Court sometime in 2005. He

filed the instant federal habeas petition on July 27, 2006.

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. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a

jury trial when it imposed terms beyond the statutory maximum for the charges of

voluntary manslaughter and gun use by relying exclusively upon facts neither

admitted in petitioner’s plea nor submitted to a jury for determination whether such

facts were true beyond a reasonable doubt. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claim

appears cognizable under § 2254 and merits an answer from respondent

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the 

Case 5:06-cv-04567-JW Document 8 Filed 06/07/07 Page 2 of 3
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 Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Rivas04567_osc.wpd 3

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 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 issued. 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. 

3. 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 shall

file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of nonopposition 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.

4. 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. 

DATED: June 7, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:06-cv-04567-JW Document 8 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 3