Esqueda v. Munks

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/17/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2011)

*E-Filed 11/17/11*

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

9
No. C 10-01787 RS

ALFONSO ESQUEDA,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Petitioner,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

12

v.

13

GREG MUNKS, Sheriff, San Mateo County,

14

Respondent.
____________________________________/

15
16
17

I. INTRODUCTION

18

Petitioner Alfonso Esqueda filed this action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 2254. At the time of filing his petition, Esqueda was on bail pending completion of his

20

sentence imposed by the San Mateo Superior Court. His petition is now before the Court for review

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

22
23
24

II. BACKGROUND
According to the petition, in 2007, a jury found petitioner guilty of brandishing a weapon.

25

The trial court sentenced him to one year of probation to be satisfied on service of ninety days in the

26

county jail. The California appellate court affirmed the conviction and the California Supreme

27

Court subsequently denied the petition for review. This federal habeas petition followed.

28
NO. C 10-1787 RS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

III. DISCUSSION

2

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

3

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

4

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A

5

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an

6

order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears

7

from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

8

Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,

9

palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Cir. 1990).
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges: (1) erroneous jury instruction for

12

failure to include the self-defense element; and (2) violation of his right to present a defense by the

13

trial court’s exclusion of evidence. Liberally construed, these claims appear to be cognizable in a

14

federal habeas action.

15
16
17
18
19

IV. CONCLUSION
1. Counsel for petitioner shall serve a copy of this Order and the petition and all attachments
thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of California.
2. Within ninety (90) days of receiving service of this Order, Respondent shall file an

20

answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing

21

cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims.

22

Respondent shall file with the answer a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously

23

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

24

3. Petitioner shall file any traverse within thirty (30) days of the date the answer is filed.

25

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of receiving service of

26

this Order, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes

27

to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner

28

shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion
NO. C 10-01787 RS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

2

1

is filed, and respondent shall file any reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any opposition is

2

filed.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: 11/17/11
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NO. C 10-01787 RS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

3