Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00948/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00948-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

MANUEL MARTIR,

Petitioner,

v.

A. LIZARRAGA, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-00948-HSG (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS

Re: Dkt. No. 2

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California, filed this pro se action 

seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the 

Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

BACKGROUND

The petition and attachments thereto provide the following information: In 2012, in San 

Francisco County Superior Court, petitioner was convicted by a jury of sexual assault. He was 

sentenced to 24 years to life in state prison. In 2014, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the 

judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Petitioner did not seek habeas relief 

in state court. The instant action was filed on March 2, 2015.

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). A 

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue 

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it 

Case 4:15-cv-00948-HSG Document 3 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 3
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

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez,

908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

B. Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that: (1) the trial court erred in 

admitting at trial the victim’s preliminary hearing testimony; and (2) the trial court erred in 

admitting at the trial the victim’s statements to a nurse made during a sexual assault examination.

Liberally construed, the claims appear arguably 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 in forma pauperis application (Dkt. 2) is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the 

respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The 

Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety-one (91)

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 

based on the claims found cognizable herein. 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-five (35) days of the date the answer is filed.

4. Respondent may file, within ninety-one (91) days, 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 

Case 4:15-cv-00948-HSG Document 3 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition is filed.

5. 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). 

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be 

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/19/2015

Case 4:15-cv-00948-HSG Document 3 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 3