Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04132/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04132-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel Moreira-Alfaro
Petitioner
State of California
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL MOREIRA-ALFARO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-4132 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANT OF LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison,

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 San Mateo County, which is

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

BACKGROUND

In 1993 a jury convicted petitioner of attempted first degree murder and assault with

a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to prison for life with the possibility of parole plus one

year. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal

and the Supreme Court of California denied review. 

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). It shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause

Case 4:07-cv-04132-PJH Document 2 Filed 08/16/07 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

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. 

 Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland

v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). A petition must “specify all the grounds for relief” and

set forth “facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the Federal District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that his Sixth Amendment

rights were violated when the sentencing court denied probation and enhanced his

sentence from a determinate sentence to an in determinate sentence based on facts not

submitted to the jury and found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. He asserts this

violated the rule announced in Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856, 871(2007). This

claim is sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall serve by regular 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 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 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

Case 4:07-cv-04132-PJH Document 2 Filed 08/16/07 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

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 fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

4. 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. Petitioner

must keep the court 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). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\MOREIRA-ALFARO4132.OSC.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-04132-PJH Document 2 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 3