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