Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02485/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02485-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ivan M. Nunez
Petitioner
James A. Yates
Respondent

Document Text:

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

IVAN M. NUNEZ, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2485 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket No. 2)

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at Pleasant

Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state conviction. Petitioner

has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis which is now GRANTED (docket no. 2). 

This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was sentenced to 35 years-to-life in state prison

after a jury trial in Santa Clara County Superior Court for conviction on charges of battery

resulting in great bodily injury and assault with a deadly weapon. Petitioner appealed his

conviction to California Court of Appeal, which denied the appeal in 2005. The Supreme

Court of California denied his petition for review in 2005. The instant federal habeas

petition was filed on May 9, 2007. 

Case 3:07-cv-02485-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/15/07 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 2

DISCUSSION

I 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). 

It 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.” Id. § 2243. 

II Legal Claims

The petition raises the following ground for relief: Petitioner suffered ineffective

assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment based on counsel’s failure to call

necessary witnesses and Petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the trial court’s

use of certain jury instructions. Liberally construed, it does not appear from the face of the

petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on his claims. Accordingly, Respondent is

ordered to respond to the petition as set forth below.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

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

all attachments thereto, 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. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60)

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

Case 3:07-cv-02485-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/15/07 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 3

to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on

Respondent within thirty (30) 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 (30)

days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

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

the Court 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: October 15, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02485-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/15/07 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN M NUNEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JAMES A YATES et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-02485 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 15, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Ivan M. Nunez

J40408

Pleasant Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 8502

Coalinga, CA 93210

Dated: October 15, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-02485-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/15/07 Page 4 of 4