Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04573/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04573-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. S. Evans
Respondent
Noe 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

NOE RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

M. S. EVANS, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4573 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, has

filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Santa Clara of multiple sexual offenses

committed against four girls under the age of 14. On or about November 30,

2001, he was sentenced to a 43-year determinate term, plus an indeterminate term

of 90 years to life, which was run consecutively to the determinate term.

Case 3:05-cv-04573-CRB Document 3 Filed 03/06/06 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

On November 14, 2003, the California Court of Appeal reversed the

judgment of the trial court as to the offenses relating to one of the victims and

remanded the matter for resentencing. The court affirmed the convictions for the

offenses relating to the other victims in all respects, however.

On January 28, 2004, 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 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. 

B. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising several claims,

including prejudicial admission of evidence and improper denial of request to

replace defense counsel. Liberally construed, the claims appear cognizable under

§ 2254 and merit an answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d

1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs

of habeas corpus liberally).

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

Case 3:05-cv-04573-CRB Document 3 Filed 03/06/06 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

this order on petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

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 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 30 days of receipt of the motion, and

respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 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 also keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 6, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04573-CRB Document 3 Filed 03/06/06 Page 3 of 3