Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-01438/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-01438-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 While the petition appears to be untimely, petitioner argues that he did not become

aware that he faced life in prison until several years after the plea. Respondent may raise the

timeliness issue in a motion to dismiss.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

CESAR R. DIAZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

GREG LEWIS,

Respondent. /

No. C 15-1438 NJV (PR)

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT

TO SHOW CAUSE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Santa Clara County, which is in

this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner has also applied

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate

Judge.

BACKGROUND

On May 29, 2007, petitioner pled guilty to dissuading a witness and committing a

felony on behalf of criminal street gang. He was sentenced to 7 years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner’s habeas petitions to the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court

were denied.1

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

Case 1:15-cv-01438-NJV Document 5 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.

1970)). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner’s sole ground for federal habeas relief is that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel with respect to his guilty plea. Liberally construed, this claim is

sufficient to require a response. 

Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment's

right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d

722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) provides that in habeas

cases, whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require”,

representation may be provided for any financially eligible person. Petitioner has presented

his claim adequately, and it is not particularly complex. The interests of justice do not

require appointment of counsel. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 4) is GRANTED.

2. The motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 2) is DENIED.

3. The clerk shall serve by regular mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto and a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form 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. 

Case 1:15-cv-01438-NJV Document 5 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within fifty-six (56)

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 twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the

answer.

5. 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, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the

date this order is entered. If a motion is filed, petitioner shall file with the court and serve

on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (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.

6. 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:15-cv-01438-NJV Document 5 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

CESAR R. DIAZ, No. 1:1-CV-01438 NJV 

Petitioner,

v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

GREG LEWIS,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on April 23, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy

of the attached, by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed

below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail.

Cesar R. Diaz 

F95152 

Pelican Bay State Prison 

C4-108 

P.O. box 7500 

Crescent City, CA 95532 

 ____________________________________

 Linn Van Meter

 Administrative Law Clerk to

 the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

Case 1:15-cv-01438-NJV Document 5 Filed 04/23/15 Page 4 of 4