Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06737/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06737-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
T. Felker
Respondent
Agustin E. Rodriguez
Petitioner

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

AUGUSTIN E. RODRIGUEZ, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

T. FELKER, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-6737 JSW (PR)

ORDER STRIKING SECOND AND

THIRD CLAIMS FROM ORIGINAL

PETITION AND CONSTRUING

SECOND AMENDED PETITION AS

AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL

PETITION; TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL; INSTRUCTIONS TO THE

CLERK

(Docket No. 10)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed a habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutional validity of his state

conviction. The petition contained three claims: 1) that his due process rights were

violated by the improper jury instructions issued by the trial court; 2) that the trial court

erred in admitting evidence of the facts underlying a prior conviction as evidence of

intent; and 3) that the trial court erred in failing to state reasons for “consecutive

sentencing to determinate sentences.” On April 12, 2007, this Court found the first claim

to be cognizable, but dismissed the second and third claims with leave to amend because

they failed to assert any violation of federal law. 

Thereafter, Petitioner filed an amended petition. In Petitioner’s first amended

petition, Petitioner only raised the jury instruction claim, the one claim the Court had

founded to be cognizable. Because the Court believed that Petitioner may have omitted

his second and third claims mistakenly, the Court gave Petitioner an additional

opportunity to amend the petition. In this second order of dismissal with leave to amend,

Case 3:06-cv-06737-JSW Document 12 Filed 03/19/08 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

the Court reminded Petitioner that only the amended petition would be considered and

that any claims raised in the earlier petition would be superceded by the filing of an

amended petition. The Court provided Petitioner with another copy of the Court’s form

petition, which Petitioner was ordered to complete. 

Petitioner has filed a second amended petition, but he did not use the Court’s form

petition. Petitioner has cured the deficiency in the second and third claims from the

amended petition insofar as he now asserts that the admission of evidence violated his

federal constitutional right to due process, and that his counsel’s failure to object to his

sentence violated his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. However,

the second amended petition now omits the first, and only cognizable, claim from the

original petition, that the jury instructions violated his right to due process. 

Because it appears that Petitioner has again mistakenly failed to include his jury

instructions claim in his second amended petition, and because it may not have been clear

to Petitioner that his failure to do so would result in the dismissal of such claim from this

action, the Court will construes the Second Amended Petition as an amendment to the

original petition, strike the second and third claims from the original petition, and allow

Petitioner to proceed based on the first claim in the original petition and the two claims set

forth in the Second Amended Petition. Having found such claims to be, when liberally

construed, cognizable, an order to show cause will issue. 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The second and third claims in the original petition, filed October 30, 2006, are

STRICKEN and are superseded by the two claims set forth in the June 18, 2007 Second

Amended Petition, which is construed as an amendment to the original petition.

2. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the October 30,

2006 petition, the June 18, 2007 Second Amended 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. 

Case 3:06-cv-06737-JSW Document 12 Filed 03/19/08 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. 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 based on the first claim in the October 30, 2007 petition and the two claims

in the June 18, 2007 Second Amended Petition. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. The circumstances of this case do not warrant appointment of counsel at this

time. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 10) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 19, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

Case 3:06-cv-06737-JSW Document 12 Filed 03/19/08 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

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AGUSTIN E. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

T. FELKER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-06737 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 March 19, 2008, 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.

Agustin E. Rodriguez

V28080

High Desert State Prison

P.O. Box 3030

Susanville, CA 96127

Dated: March 19, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-06737-JSW Document 12 Filed 03/19/08 Page 4 of 4