Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06649/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06649-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MAX VALADEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, Warden,

 Respondent.

Case No. 19-06649 BLF (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction in Alameda County 

Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. The Court requested Respondent to file notice regarding the

timeliness of this action. Dkt. No. 29. On April 16, 2020, Respondent filed notice that a 

motion to dismiss on untimeliness grounds appears to be unwarranted. Dkt. No. 10. 

Accordingly, this matter shall proceed to briefing. 

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 

Case 5:19-cv-06649-BLF Document 12 Filed 05/05/20 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

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 claims the following grounds for habeas relief: (1) the admission of the 

victim’s preliminary hearing testimony and his statements to the police violated 

Petitioner’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment; (2) there was insufficient 

evidence to support the gang enhancement; and (3) “the appellate court denied his 

federally protected procedural due process safeguard’s [sic] in redressing his claims.” Dkt. 

No. 1 at 5. Liberally construed, claims 1 and 2 are cognizable under § 2254 and merit an 

answer from Respondent.

With respect to the third claim, it must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable 

claim. On direct appeal, Petitioner raised claims 1 and 2 above, and the state appellate 

court rejected the claims on the merits and affirmed the judgment. Dkt. No. 1 at 19-31. 

Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, challenging the state 

appellate courts’ decision on direct appeal. Id. at 33-39. The high court dismissed the 

petition without prejudice “to filing a motion in the trial court pursuant to Penal Code 

section 1203.01. (See In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439.).” Id. at 32. Petitioner is now 

asserting that the appellate court’s failure to grant him the same sort of “relief” as that 

granted by the state high court amounts to a constitutional violation. He is mistaken. The 

“relief” granted by the state high court was based purely on state law. A petitioner may 

not “transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due 

process.” Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996). Even if the state 

appellate court erred by overlooking a procedure available to Petitioner under state law, the 

Supreme Court has repeatedly held that federal habeas writ is unavailable for violations of 

state law or for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. See

Case 5:19-cv-06649-BLF Document 12 Filed 05/05/20 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 

(1991); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982); Peltier v. Wright, 15 F.3d 860, 861-62 

(9th Cir. 1994); see, e.g., Little v. Crawford, 449 F.3d 1075, 1082 (9th Cir. 2006) (claim 

that state supreme court misapplied state law or departed from its earlier decisions does not 

provide a ground for habeas relief). It also is unavailable for alleged error in the state postconviction review process, Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. 

denied, 493 U.S. 1012 (1989), or violations of the state constitution, Hinman v. McCarthy, 

676 F.2d 343, 349 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, claim 3 is DISMISSED for failure 

to state a claim. This matter shall proceed solely on claims 1 and 2 above. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

1. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety

(90) 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. 

2. 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 twentyeight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve 

on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition.

Case 5:19-cv-06649-BLF Document 12 Filed 05/05/20 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

3. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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 and all 

parties 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 5, 2020__________ ________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Order to Show Cause

PRO-SE\BLF\HC.19\06649Valadez_osc

Case 5:19-cv-06649-BLF Document 12 Filed 05/05/20 Page 4 of 4