Castro v. Lizarraga et al

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on December 11, 2015. (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MANUEL JOE CASTRO,
Petitioner,

8

10

JOE A. LIZARRAGA, Warden,
Respondent.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

14
15

Manuel Joe Castro, a state prisoner proceeding with the assistance of counsel, seeks a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Castro has paid the filing fee.2 The court orders
Respondent Joe A. Lizarraga to show cause why the petition should not be granted based on
Castro’s cognizable claims.

16

I.

17
18
19
20

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

9

13

Case No. 5:14-cv-04284-PSG

Castro was convicted in state court after a jury found him guilty of three counts of Cal.
Penal Code § 288(a), lewd acts upon a minor under the age of 14, involving two victims.3 He was
sentenced to three concurrent terms of 15 years to life in prison.4 The Court of Appeal for the
First Appellate District affirmed his conviction, and the California Supreme Court denied review.5

21
22
23

1

See Docket No. 1.

24

2

See id.

25

3

See id. at ¶ 1.

26

4

See id.

27

5

See id. at ¶ 2.

28

1
Case No. 5:14-cv-04284-PSG
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

Castro states that he has exhausted his state remedies.6
II.

2

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

3
4

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

5

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”7
A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

6
7

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant

8

or person detained is not entitled thereto.”8 Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the

9

allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or

10

false.9
III.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Castro claims that (1) he was not properly advised of his rights prior to the commencement

13

of his custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda v. Arizona;10 (2) his confession was obtained

14

in violation of his assertion of his right to remain silent, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth

15

Amendments; (3) his confession was obtained in violation of his assertion of his right to counsel,

16

guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; (4) his confession was involuntary, in

17

violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to remain silent and to due process; and

18

(5) introduction of his confession at trial was prejudicial.11 When liberally construed, these claims

19

are cognizable, and the court orders Lizarraga to show cause why the petition should not be

20
6

See id. at ¶ 52.

22

7

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).

23

8

28 U.S.C. § 2243.

24

9

21

25

See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431
U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).
10

384 U.S. 436 (1966).

11

See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 48-51.

26
27
28

2
Case No. 5:14-cv-04284-PSG
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

granted as to these claims.
IV.

2
3

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition with all attachments and a

4

magistrate judge jurisdiction consent form on Lizarraga and Lizarraga’s attorney, the Attorney

5

General of the State of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Castro.

6

Lizarraga shall file with the court and serve on Castro, within 60 days of the date this order
is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

8

Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Lizarraga shall file with

9

the answer and serve on Castro a copy of all portions of the underlying state criminal record that

10

have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

by the petition. If Castro wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with

12

the court and serving it on Lizarraga within 30 days of the date the answer is filed.

13

Lizarraga may filed a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set

14

forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

15

within 60 days of the date this order is filed. If Lizarraga files such a motion, Castro shall file

16

with the court and serve on Lizarraga an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days

17

of the date the motion is filed, and Lizarraga shall file with the court and serve on Castro a reply

18

within 14 days of the date any opposition is filed.

19

It is Castro’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Castro is reminded that all

20

communications with the court must be served on Lizarraga by serving a true copy of the

21

document to Lizarraga’s counsel. Castro must keep the court and all parties informed of any

22

change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must

23

comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of

24

this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 5:14-cv-04284-PSG
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

SO ORDERED.

2

Dated: December 11, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

3
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

4
Case No. 5:14-cv-04284-PSG
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE