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
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?