Sausedo v. Choate

Filing 10

ORDER REOPENING ACTION; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/18/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2013)

1
2
3

*E-Filed 3/18/13*

4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11

LEO RAYMOND SAUSEDO,

12

No. C 12-1636 RS (PR)

Petitioner,

ORDER REOPENING ACTION;

13

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

14

J. CHOATE, Warden,
15

Respondent.
16

/

17
18
19

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his state convictions. The petition for such

20

relief was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Petitioner has submitted a motion for

21

reconsideration (Docket No. 9), which the Court construes as a motion to reopen the action.

22

So construed, the motion is GRANTED. The action is hereby REOPENED and the Clerk is

23

directed to do so. The petition is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

24

§ 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The filing fee has been paid.

25

Respondent shall file an answer or a dispositive motion on or before June 18, 2013.

26
27
28
No. C 12-1636 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

BACKGROUND

1
2

According to the petition, in 2008, a Santa Clara Superior Court jury convicted him of

3

spousal rape, inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, and violating a protective order.

4

Consequent to his convictions, petitioner received a sentence of 6 years in state prison.
DISCUSSION

5

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

7

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

8

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

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

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

10

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

11

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

12

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

13

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

14

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

15

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) the trial court violated

16

his right to due process by limiting his cross-examination of a witness; and (2) defense

17

counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Liberally construed, these claims appear to be

18

cognizable on federal habeas review.

19
20

CONCLUSION
1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

21

attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the

22

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

23

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

24

days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

25

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not

26

be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer

27

and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have

28
2

No. C 12-1636 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

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

2

petition.

3

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

4

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

5

answer is filed.

6

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this
order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, as set forth in the Advisory

8

Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an opposition or

10

statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

11

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

12

the date any opposition is filed.

13
14
15

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

16

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s

17

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

18

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

19
20

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.

21

8. The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 9.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED: March 18, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
3

No. C 12-1636 RS (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE