Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00856/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00856-0/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

Case No.15-cv-00856-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LUIS ROBERTO CAMPOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM HOLLAND,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00856-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Petitioner Luis Campos, a state prisoner at Tehachapi California Correctional Institute filed 

this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 12, 2011, Petitioner was convicted of four counts of lewd act upon a child 

under the age of fourteen, three counts of forcible lewd act upon a child, two counts of false 

imprisonment by violence, and one count of assault with intent to commit a felony. Id. at 2. 

Petitioner appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment on September 

30, 2013. Id. The California Supreme Court denied review on January 15, 2014. Id. Petitioner filed 

the underlying petition on February 25, 2015. 

Case 5:15-cv-00856-LHK Document 10 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.15-cv-00856-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

II. 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). The 

Court 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 by raising a due process claim under the 

Fourteenth Amendment. Petitioner claims that the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of an 

uncharged and unrelated alleged sexual offence, and that the trial court’s evidentiary decision 

resulted in “a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” See 

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993). The claim appears cognizable under § 2254 and 

merits an answer from Respondent.

III. 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 and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State 

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

2. 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 

Case 5:15-cv-00856-LHK Document 10 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.15-cv-00856-LHK

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

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 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.

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00856-LHK Document 10 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 3