Lamons v. Lackner

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

          EDWARD J. DAVILA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

         BACKGROUND

         According to the petition, Petitioner pleaded guilty in 1983 to false imprisonment, battery, and sexual battery in Monterey County Superior Court. (Pet. at 2.) Petitioner was sentenced to probation, and is currently confined at the Sierra Conservation Center for subsequent crimes. (Id.)

         Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the state high court which was denied on June 10, 2015. (Pet. at 2-3.)

         Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on September 10, 2015. The action was dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee on February 18, 2016. (Docket No. 6.) The Court granted Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and reopened the action on March 10, 2016, after it was confirmed that payment was received and the delay was not due to Petitioner’s lack of diligence. (Docket No. 9.)

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

         It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.

         B. Legal Claims

         Petitioner claims newly discovered evidence of a “Boykin/Tahl violation” in his 1983 conviction which “is causing prejudice to the current 1990 conviction.”^[1] (Pet. at 4.) Specifically, Petitioner claims that had he known that he would have had to register as a sex offender for life, he would not have entered a guilty plea. (Pet. at 6.) Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claim is cognizable and merits an answer from Respondent. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43 (1969).

         CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition (Docket No. 1) and all attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of ...