Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02732/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02732-0/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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06 \Lazo732osc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY A. LAZO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

KEN CLARK, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-2732 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court orders

Respondent to show cause as to why the petition should not be granted. 

STATEMENT

An San Francisco Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of robbery, which

qualified as a “strike” within California’s “Three Strikes” law. See Cal. Penal Code §§

212.5(c); 667(a), (d), (e); 1170.12. On July 16, 2004, Petitioner was sentenced to eleven

years in state prison. Petitioner appealed his conviction. The state appellate court

affirmed the judgment in 2004. The state supreme court denied a petition for review in

2005. The instant federal habeas petition was filed on April 26, 2006. 

**Original filed 9/30/06**

Case 5:06-cv-02732-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06 \Lazo732osc 2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district 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). 

A district 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner alleges the following claims for federal habeas relief: (1) the trial court

erred and violated his federal constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial and a jury

trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte

on CALJIC Nos. 2.71, 2.71.7; (2) the trial court erred and violated his federal

constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial and a jury trial under the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments by failing to instruct the jury on battery as a lesser included

offense of robbery; (3) the trial court erred and violated his federal constitutional right to

due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by erroneously instructing the jury that 

assault was a lesser included offense of grand theft; (4) the prosecutor committed

misconduct in closing argument and violated his federal constitutional rights to due

process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment by impugning defense counsel’s

integrity and arguing that defense counsel had manufactured the defense; and (5) defense

counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his federal constitutional

rights under the Sixth Amendment by making illusory promises in the opening statement

to the jury. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims are sufficient to require a response. 

The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

\\\

Case 5:06-cv-02732-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06 \Lazo732osc 3

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all 

attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of

the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the Petitioner. 

2. 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 a copy on Respondent within thirty days of his receipt of the

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 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.

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

9/30/06

Case 5:06-cv-02732-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06 \Lazo732osc 4

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Jimmy A. Lazo

V-42440

CSATF - Corcoran

P.O. Box 5242

Corcoran, CA 93212

California State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:06-cv-02732-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 4 of 4