Campos v. Stone

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PRIMITIVO CAMPOS,

Case No. 15-cv-04298-EDL

Plaintiff.
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9
10

DANIEL STONE,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Petitioner Primitivo Campos, currently on parole, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
BACKGROUND

15
16

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the State of California in and

17

for the County of San Jose of lewd acts on a child in violation of California Penal Code section

18

288(a), a felony, and the lesser included offense of misdemeanor simple battery under Penal Code

19

sections 242 and 243(a). On or about September 21, 2012, he was sentenced to three years in state

20

prison and later deported. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the California

21

Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, which on January 14, 2015 denied review

22

of a petition allegedly raising the same claims raised here.
DISCUSSION

23
24

A. Legal Standard

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

“award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not

1

be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not

2

entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

3

Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or

4

conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

5

F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
B. Petitioner’s Legal Claims

6
7

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the following claims: violation of

8

his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process due to introduction into evidence of

9

involuntary statements to police and violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

of counsel.
Liberally construed, the claims appear colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (or 2254) and
merit an answer from respondents.
CONCLUSION

13
14

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown

15

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition and

16

all attachments thereto upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of

17

this order on petitioner.

18
19
20
21
22
23

2. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of
the date of this order, an answer showing why a writ of habeas corpus should
not be issued (or -an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus
should not be issued). Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on
petitioner a copy of all portions of the administrative record that are relevant to
a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

24
3. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a
25
traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his
26
27

receipt of the answer.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

28
2

1
2
3

Dated: September 22, 2015
______________________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3