Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01174/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01174-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTANCIO OROZCO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-1174 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANT OF LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State

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

He also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

 Venue is proper because the conviction was obtained in Monterey County, which is

in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to second degree robbery with sentencing

enhancements. He was sentenced to prison for twenty-two years. He did not appeal, but

did file state habeas petitions raising the issues presented here. All were denied. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for 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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

Case 4:07-cv-01174-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 4
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

2

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes

(quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which

appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon

v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) He was incompetent

to plead guilty and admit the enhancements; (2) both his attorneys were ineffective; and (3)

the sentencing court’s imposition of the restitution obligation violated his constitutional

rights, state law, and the plea bargain.

The state law claims included in issue three cannot be the basis for federal habeas

relief, so they will be dismissed. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). The

remaining claims are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (document number 3 on the docket) is

GRANTED.

2. The state law claims in issue three are DISMISSED.

3. Petitioner’s “motions” to correct errors in his petition (documents 4 and 5) are

DENIED as unnecessary. The corrections are noted.

4. The clerk shall serve by regular 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. 

Case 4:07-cv-01174-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

5. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty 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 days of his receipt of the answer.

6. 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 days of

receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply

within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

7. 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 keep the court informed of any change of address and 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). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\OROZCO1174.OSC.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-01174-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/25/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case 4:07-cv-01174-PJH Document 8 Filed 02/25/08 Page 4 of 4