Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03347/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03347-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Clark
Respondent
Marco Antonio Correa
Petitioner

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 1

In light of petitioner’s having paid the filing fee, his motion to withdraw his

previously-filed in forma pauperis applications will be granted.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCO ANTONIO CORREA, 

Petitioner,

 v.

KENNETH CLARK, Warden, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 09-3347 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANTING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW IN FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATIONS

(Docket Nos. 2, 6, 10)

On July 21, 2009, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 10, 2010,

petitioner paid the filing fee.1

 

BACKGROUND

In 2003, in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, petitioner pleaded guilty to two

counts of lewd acts on a child with the use of force. He was sentenced to sixteen years in

state prison. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal and filed a

petition for review in the California Supreme Court. Petitioner does not indicate in the

instant petition the rulings obtained in those proceedings. Subsequently, petitioner

challenged the validity of his plea agreement and sentence by filing habeas petitions in the

Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. All three

habeas petitions were denied. 

Case 3:09-cv-03347-MMC Document 11 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 3
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

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);

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

In the instant petition, petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of his plea

agreement and sentence based on the following: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel

resulting in petitioner’s being sentenced to sixteen years in prison although counsel had

informed him that the maximum sentence he would receive was between four and six years;

and (2) violation of petitioner’s right to due process when the state trial court sentenced him

to an upper term without the relevant findings having been made by a jury. Liberally

construed, petitioner’s assertions present cognizable claims for relief. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Petitioner’s motion to withdraw his pending in forma pauperis applications is

hereby GRANTED. (Docket No. 10.) The Clerk shall terminate the in forma pauperis

applications on the docket. (Docket Nos. 2, 6.)

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petition (Docket No. 1), along with all attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s

counsel, the Attorney General for 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 (90)

days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

Case 3:09-cv-03347-MMC Document 11 Filed 04/19/10 Page 2 of 3
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

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not

be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. 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’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

answer is filed.

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) 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. 

6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

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

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

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 6 and 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03347-MMC Document 11 Filed 04/19/10 Page 3 of 3