Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06236/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06236-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clemeth Ray Castille
Petitioner
Michael Knowles
Respondent

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLEMETH RAY CASTILLE,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL KNOWLES, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-6236 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Clemeth Ray Castille, an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California,

filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His

petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

BACKGROUND

According to the habeas petition, petitioner was convicted in Alameda County

Superior Court of murder and robbery. On November 18, 1999, he was sentenced to life

imprisonment without the possibility of parole. He appealed his conviction. His conviction

initially was affirmed and his petition for review was denied, but aparently the U. S. Supreme

Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 61 (2004). On the second round of the appeal, the

California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and the California Supreme Court denied

the petition for review. Castille then filed this action, seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

Case 3:06-cv-06236-MHP Document 3 Filed 12/21/06 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

DISCUSSION

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). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

The petition alleges a single claim, i.e., that Castille's rights under the Confrontation

Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were violated. Liberally construed,

the claim is cognizable in federal habeas and warrants a response.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition states a cognizable claim for habeas relief based on the alleged

Sixth Amendment violation. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before February 23,

2007, 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 issued. Respondent must

file with the answer a copy of all portions of the state court record that have been previously

transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before March 30, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-06236-MHP Document 3 Filed 12/21/06 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

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 20, 2006 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

 

Case 3:06-cv-06236-MHP Document 3 Filed 12/21/06 Page 3 of 3