Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07239/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07239-0/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

FELIPE RAMOS GARCIA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-7239 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docs # 4, 5 & 6)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione,

California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 challenging a conviction from the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Santa Clara. He also seeks to proceed in

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pleaded no contest to four counts of having committed a lewd

act on a child with use of force or threat of force, and one count of committing a

lewd act on a child under the age of 14, in exchange for a promise that any prison

term imposed would not exceed 30 years. October 19, 2002, the trial court

sentenced him to the maximum term provided by the plea agreement, 30 years in

state prison.

Case 3:06-cv-07239-CRB Document 7 Filed 02/26/07 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

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court on

April 2, 2003, and the Supreme Court of California denied review on June 18,

2003. Petitioner then sought collateral relief from the state courts. The Supreme

Court of California denied his final petition for state collateral relief on August

23, 2006. The instant federal habeas petition followed.

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. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that his

counsel's ineffective assistance rendered his plea unknowing and involuntary. He

also claims prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel at his

sentencing hearing. Liberally construed, the 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).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (docs # 4, 5 & 6))

is GRANTED.

Case 3:06-cv-07239-CRB Document 7 Filed 02/26/07 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. 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

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 30

days of his receipt of the answer.

4. 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 30 days of receipt of the motion, and

respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days

of receipt of any opposition.

5. Petitioner is reminded that he must keep the court and all parties

informed of any change of address. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Feb. 26, 2007 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07239-CRB Document 7 Filed 02/26/07 Page 3 of 3