Dela Calzada v. Gipson
Filing
8
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 10/15/2014. Petitioners motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 7) is DENIED as moot, the filing fee having been paid. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 07/07/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOVENCIO DELA CALZADA,
Case No. 14-cv-00103-WHO (PR)
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Petitioner,
12
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
13
14
CONNIE GIPSON,
Respondent.
15
16
17
INTRODUCTION
18
Petitioner Jovencio Dela Calzada seeks federal habeas relief from his state
19
convictions. The petition for such relief is now before the Court for review pursuant to
20
28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
21
22
Respondent shall file an answer or dispositive motion in response to the habeas
petition on or before October 15, 2014, unless an extension is granted.
23
BACKGROUND
24
According to the petition, in 2011, a Contra Costa County Superior Court jury
25
convicted Dela Calzada of committing multiple sex offenses against children. He received
26
a sentence of 173 years-to-life in state prison.
27
28
DISCUSSION
1
2
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person
3
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
4
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
5
§ 2254(a). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall
6
“award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ
7
should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person
8
detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate
9
only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or
10
patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
As grounds for federal habeas relief, Dela Calzada alleges that (1) his sentence is
12
unconstitutional; and (2) defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance. When liberally
13
construed, these claims are cognizable on federal habeas review.
14
CONCLUSION
15
1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments
16
thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the State of
17
California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner.
18
2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)
19
days of the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the
20
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should
21
not be granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the
22
answer and serve on petitioner 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
24
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
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
4
files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondent an
5
opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is
6
filed, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen
7
(15) days of 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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the
12
Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this
13
action for 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.
8. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 7) is DENIED as
moot, the filing fee having been paid.
18
9. The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 7.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated: July 7, 2014
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?