Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04630/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04630-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Biter
Defendant
Raymond Campos
Plaintiff

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RAYMOND CAMPOS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MARTIN BITER, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 15-cv-04630-PJH 

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO 

SHOW CAUSE 

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Monterey County which is in 

this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). He has paid the filing 

fee. 

BACKGROUND 

A jury convicted petitioner of inflicting great bodily injury during the deliberate 

attempted murder of a sheriff’s deputy. He was sentenced to 34 years in state prison. 

His conviction was affirmed on appeal. People v. Campos, 2012 WL 3996829 (Cal. App. 

6 Dist. Sep. 11, 2012). 

DISCUSSION 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

This court may entertain a petition for 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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet 

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An 

Case 4:15-cv-04630-PJH Document 6 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody 

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to 

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the 

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 

1970)). 

II. LEGAL CLAIMS 

Petitioner’s sole ground for federal habeas relief asserts that his trial counsel was 

ineffective in the plea bargaining stage pursuant to Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 

(2012). This claim is sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

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 fifty-six 

(56) 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 twenty-eight (28) 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, it is due fifty-six (56) 

Case 4:15-cv-04630-PJH Document 6 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

da

cou

twe

an

ser

Pe

the

act

Ma

cas

Da

\\CA

ys from the

urt and serv

enty-eight (

d serve on 

4. 

rved on res

etitioner mu

e court’s ord

tion for failu

artinez v. Jo

ses). 

IT IS S

ated: 11/20/

ANDOAK\Data\U

e date this o

ve on respo

(28) days o

petitioner a

Petitioner i

spondent by

st keep the

ders in a tim

ure to prose

ohnson, 104

SO ORDER

/15 

sers\PJHALL\_p

order is ente

ondent an o

f receipt of 

a reply with

s reminded

y mailing a 

e court infor

mely fashio

ecute pursu

4 F.3d 769

RED. 

psp\2015\2015_0

3

ered. If a m

opposition o

the motion

in fourteen

d that all co

true copy o

rmed of any

n. Failure t

uant to Fed

, 772 (5th C

04630_Campos_

motion is file

or statemen

n, and respo

 (14) days 

ommunicatio

of the docu

y change of

to do so ma

eral Rule o

Cir. 1997) (

__

PH

Un

_v_Biter_(PSP)\1

ed, petition

nt of non-op

ondent sha

of receipt o

ons with the

ment to res

f address a

ay result in 

of Civil Proc

Rule 41(b) 

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

5-cv-04630-PJH

ner shall file

pposition w

ll file with th

of any oppo

e court mus

spondent’s 

and must co

the dismis

cedure 41(b

applicable 

_________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

H-_osc.docx 

e with the 

within 

he court 

osition. 

st be 

counsel. 

omply with 

sal of this 

b). See 

in habeas 

______

N

udge 

Case 4:15-cv-04630-PJH Document 6 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 3