Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03229/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03229-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
V. M. Almager
Respondent
Ronnell Ray Hill
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

RONNELL RAY HILL, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

V. M. ALMAGER, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-3229 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket No. 3)

INTRODUCTION

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

State Prison-Los Angeles in Lancaster, 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. 3). This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should not

be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was sentenced to 184 years in state prison after

a jury trial in Monterey County Superior Court and conviction on multiple counts of

domestic violence, including assault and sexual assault, criminal threats, false

imprisonment, and violation of a protective order. Petitioner appealed his conviction to

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

Case 3:07-cv-03229-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/30/07 Page 1 of 5
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

California denied his petition for review in 2006. The instant federal habeas petition was

filed on June 19, 2007. 

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. 

Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland

v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An 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 which are available to the petitioner ... and shall set

forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c)

of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 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). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally

insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court

(Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

II Legal Claims

The petition raises the following ground for relief: 1) Petitioner suffered

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

to prepare a defense; 2) the trial court erred in finding that consecutive sentences were

required under state law; and 3) Petitioner’s sentence to the upper term and to consecutive

Case 3:07-cv-03229-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 5
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

terms violates his rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Liberally

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

relief on claims one and three. Petitioner’s second claim alleges an error in the

interpretation or application of state law, which is not cognizable in federal habeas

corpus. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107,

119 (1982); Peltier v. Wright, 15 F.3d 860, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1994); see, e.g., Little v.

Crawford, 449 F.3d 1075, 1082 (9th Cir. 2006) (claim that state supreme court misapplied

state law or departed from its earlier decisions does not provide a ground for habeas

relief). Accordingly, Respondent is ordered to respond to claims one and three in 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

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)

Case 3:07-cv-03229-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/30/07 Page 3 of 5
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

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 30, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03229-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/30/07 Page 4 of 5
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

RONNELL RAY HILL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

V.M. ALMAGER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-03229 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 30, 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.

Ronnell Ray Hill

C.S.P. Los Angeles County

P.O. Box 8457

V46928

Lancaster, CA 93539

Dated: October 30, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-03229-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/30/07 Page 5 of 5