Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00949/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00949-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Miguel Avalos
Petitioner
Ben Curry
Respondent

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE MIGUEL AVALOS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-0949 WHA (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. He has paid the filing fee. 

 Venue is proper because the conviction was obtained in Monterey County, which is in

this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

STATEMENT

Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of attempted murder and was sentenced to

prison for nineteen years. He unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of

Appeal, and he has filed state habeas petitions; all were denied. 

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

Case 3:08-cv-00949-WHA Document 6 Filed 03/12/08 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

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 which are available to the petitioner ... and shall set

forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” 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). 

“Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary

dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir.

1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his counsel was

ineffective in that he grossly mischaracterized petitioner’s potential exposure, thus coercing him

to take a plea offer; (2) his counsel was ineffective in stipulating to the factual basis for the plea

when there was almost no evidence to support the gang enhancement; (3) his counsel was

ineffective in failing to investigate before advising petitioner to take the plea offer; (4) his

counsel was ineffective in failing to prepare for trial; (5) his counsel was ineffective in failing to

advise petitioner that the prosecution had virtually no evidence of a gang connection, and thus

was unlikely to be able to prove the gang enhancement; (6) the state courts’ rejection of his

ineffective assistance claims was an unreasonable application of clearly-established federal law

and was based an unreasonable determination of the facts; (7) there was not a sufficient factual

basis for the plea, a violation of his due process rights; (8) there was cumulative error; and (9)

the state courts’ refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing was objectively unreasonable. 

Issue six, his contention that the state courts’ rejection of his ineffective assistance claims

was an unreasonable application of clearly-established federal law and was based an

unreasonable determination of the facts, is simply a statement of the standard for granting federal

Case 3:08-cv-00949-WHA Document 6 Filed 03/12/08 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

habeas relief if a constitutional violation is first found; it is not a basis for relief in itself. 

Issue eight, a contention that there was cumulative error, is not a ground for federal

habeas relief – in the absence of a constitutional violation, multiple errors which are not of

constitutional dimension cannot cumulate to add up to a constitutional violation. See Mancuso v.

Olivarez, 292 F.3d 939, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (where there is no single constitutional error

existing, nothing can accumulate to the level of a constitutional violation). It is true that

constitutional violations can cumulate to establish prejudice, but that is something that will be

considered automatically by the Court if constitutional error is established. 

 Issue nine, petitioner’s contention that the state courts’ failure to hold an evidentiary

hearing violated his rights, is not a ground for habeas relief because there is no constitutional

right to a state evidentiary hearing. See Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 271 (5th Cir. 2001)

(“infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for relief in federal court”)

(quoting Trevino v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 180 (5th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added; internal

quotation marks and citations omitted)).

For these reasons issues six, eight and nine will be dismissed. The other issues are

sufficient o require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Issues six, eight and nine are DISMISSED. 

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 the petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of

service 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

Case 3:08-cv-00949-WHA Document 6 Filed 03/12/08 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

court and serving it on respondent within thirty days of service of the answer.

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer,

as set forth in 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 15 days of receipt of any opposition.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Papers intended to be

filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk rather than to the undersigned. Petitioner also

must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk

headed “Notice of Change of Address,” and comply with any orders of the court within the time

allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. 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: March 12 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.08\avalos949.OSC.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-00949-WHA Document 6 Filed 03/12/08 Page 4 of 4