Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04890/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04890-0/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

MICHAEL RAY JILES, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

TOM CAREY, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-4890 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at California

State Prison-Solano in Vacaville, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the imposition of a 10 year prison sentence after

Petitioner’s probationary sentence was revoked. On February 15, 2005, the petition was

dismissed with leave to amend for failure to allege the violation of a federal right. 

Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was previously granted. This order

directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner plead guilty to several drug crimes upon a

negotiated plea that he be sentenced to a term of one year in county jail and probation,

including completion of the two year Delancey Street program and receive a suspended

sentence of 10 years in prison. Petitioner alleges that in his absence the negotiated plea

was altered to require his attendance in a program other than Delancey Street. Petitioner

Case 3:04-cv-04890-JSW Document 6 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 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 2

contends that imposition of the 10 year prison sentence after he was found to have failed

to complete the other program violates his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments. He alleges that he has exhausted state judicial remedies as to

these claims.

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 alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by the alteration of

his plea agreement in his absence. Liberally construed, the allegations are sufficient to

warrant a response from Respondent. See Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 117 (1983);

Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 (1987). However, Petitioner’s state law claim

regarding pre-sentence credits fails to present a federal claim for relief. As such, that

claim is dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner filing this claim in a fully exhausted

petition alleging the violation of a federal right.

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 petition, and

all attachments thereto, on Respondent, Tom Carey, Warden of California State PrisonSacramento and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. 

The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

Case 3:04-cv-04890-JSW Document 6 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 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 3

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 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.

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 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.

4. 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: May 15, 2006 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04890-JSW Document 6 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 3