Mouzon v. Ahlin
Filing
15
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/9/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2012)
1
2
*E-Filed 1/9/12*
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11
12
ALFONSO MOUZON,
13
Petitioner,
14
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
15
No. C 11-0637 RS (PR)
PAM AHLIN,
16
17
18
19
Respondent.
/
INTRODUCTION
This is a federal habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a pro se
20
state prisoner. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend. The amended
21
petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the
22
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.
23
DISCUSSION
24
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
25
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
26
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
27
A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ
28
No. C 11-0637 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
1
or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,
2
unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
3
thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in
4
the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See
5
Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
6
Petitioner challenges a 2006 determination by the Alameda County Superior Court
7
that he is a sexually violent predator under California law. As grounds for federal habeas
8
relief, petitioner claims that (1) the Department of Mental Health failed to adhere to the
9
requirements of the sexually violent predator law in making their determination; (2) his due
10
process rights have been violated; and that his commitment violates (3) the Double Jeopardy
11
and (4) Ex Post Facto Clauses. Claim 1 is DISMISSED without leave to amend. It is a state
12
law claim, and as such, it is not remediable on federal habeas review, even if state law were
13
erroneously applied or interpreted. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 861–62 (2011).
14
Claims 2, 3, and 4, however, appear to state claims for relief, when liberally construed.
15
16
CONCLUSION
1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all
17
attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the
18
State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
19
2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)
20
days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the
21
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not
22
be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claim. Respondent shall file with the answer and
23
serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have been
24
transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
25
3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse
26
with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the
27
answer is filed.
28
2
No. C 11-0637 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
1
4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this
2
order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory
3
Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files
4
such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or
5
statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and
6
respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of
7
the date any opposition is filed.
8
9
10
5. 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.
6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the
11
Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s
12
orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for
13
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
14
15
16
17
7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be
granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 9, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
No. C 11-0637 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?