Vasquez-Zapata v. Santoro

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 9/19/2017.. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 7/14/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
ETELBERTO VASQUEZ-ZAPATA,

No. C 17-2820 WHA (PR)

9
Petitioner,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS

10
KELLY SANTORO,
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

v.
11

(Dkt. No. 4)

12
Respondent.
13

/

14
INTRODUCTION
15
Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
16
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging his state court conviction. His motion for leave to
17
proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. For the reasons discussed below, respondent is ordered
18
to show cause why the petition should not be granted.
19
STATEMENT
20
Petitioner was convicted in Monterey County Superior Court of first-degree murder and
21
sentenced to a term of 26 years in state prison. His appeals to the California Court of Appeals
22
and the California Supreme Court were denied. Thereafter, petitioner filed the instant federal
23
petition.
24
ANALYSIS
25
A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

26
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
27
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
28
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

1

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

2

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

3

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

4

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

B.

LEGAL CLAIMS
Petitioner claims that: (1) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

limiting instruction to the jury; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to

12

prosecutorial misconduct; (3) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to secure a jury

13

instruction on voluntary intoxication; (4) his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the

14

omission of instructions on the prosecutor’s burden to disprove self-defense and voluntary

15

manslaughter; and (5) the cumulative effect of the foregoing errors rendered the trial

16

fundamentally unfair. When liberally construed, these claim warrant a response.

17

CONCLUSION

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty-three (63)

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state prison disciplinary proceedings that are

26

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

27
28

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the
court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight days of the date the answer is filed.
2

1

3. Respondent may file, within sixty-three (63) days, a motion to dismiss on procedural

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

7

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

8

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

9

keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a
timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

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

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
Dated: July
15

14

, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3