Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04841/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04841-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis Mitchell Castillo
Petitioner
M. S. Evans
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

CURTIS MITCHELL CASTILLO, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

M. S. EVANS, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-4841 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket No. 4)

INTRODUCTION

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

Valley State Prison in Soledad, 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 (docket no. 4), which is now GRANTED.

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

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted after trial in Monterey County

Superior Court and sentenced to a term of 85 years-to-life in prison. Petitioner appealed

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

Supreme Court of California denied his petition for review in 2005. Petitioner filed the

instant federal habeas petition on August 10, 2006.

DISCUSSION

Case 3:06-cv-04841-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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

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 Claim 

The petition alleges that the trial court violated Petitioner’s due process and jury

trial rights by failing to provide a jury instruction on Petitioner’ defense. Liberally

construed, it does not appear from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to

relief. 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

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

Case 3:06-cv-04841-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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

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: January 17, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04841-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/17/07 Page 3 of 3