Lopez v. Gipson

Filing 3

Motions terminated: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Levy G.A. Lopez., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 7/2/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
LEVY GAMILIEL ABOITES
LOPEZ,

No. C 13-2818 WHA (PR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

11
Petitioner,
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
v.
13
CONNIE GIPSON,

(Dkt. 2)

14
Respondent.
/

15
16

INTRODUCTION
17
Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. For the reasons discussed below, respondent is ordered to show
19
cause why the petition should not be granted. Petitioner is also granted leave to proceed in
20
forma pauperis.
21
STATEMENT
22
Petitioner was convicted in Monterey County of carjacking, gang participation,
23
dissuading a witness. He was also found to have suffered prior convictions. The trial court
24
sentenced him to a term of 23 years in state prison. The judgment was affirmed by the
25
California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review in
26
2005. The California Supreme Court denied a petition for habeas relief in 2013.
27
//
28

1
2

ANALYSIS
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

3

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

4

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

5

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose

6

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

7

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

8

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

9

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall
set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

12

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

13

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

14

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

15

B.

16

LEGAL CLAIMS
Petitioner claims: (1) that counsel was ineffective in failing to raise arguments about his

17

sentence; and (2) he was sentence to an illegal and unauthorized sentence, in violation of his

18

right to due process. He also argues that the foregoing problems resulted in miscarriage of

19

justice, excusing “any procedural defects,” including untimeliness or procedural default. When

20

liberally construed, these claims are sufficient to warrant an answer from respondent.

21

CONCLUSION

22

1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

23

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

24

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner.

25

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety-one days

26

of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

27

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

28

granted based on the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and
2

1

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed

2

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

3

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

4

court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight days of the date the answer is filed.

5

3. Respondent may file, within ninety-one days, a motion to dismiss on procedural

6

grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the

7

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file

8

with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within

9

twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is filed.
4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

12

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must

13

keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a

14

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

15

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772

16

(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

17

5. The application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 2) is GRANTED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: July

2

, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3