Ruiz v. Covello
- Sallie Kim
- 3:22-cv-05777
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ruiz v. Covello, Magistrate Judge Kim ordered the respondent to answer Ruiz’s habeas petition challenging his convictions and sentence.
Benjamin Ramirez Ruiz and the respondent in his federal habeas case, including the California Attorney General’s Office, were affected by the order. The respondent was required to answer within 60 days, and Ruiz was given 30 days after receiving that answer to respond.
What happened
In Ruiz v. Covello, Benjamin Ramirez Ruiz, a state prisoner, filed a petition asking a federal court to review his Alameda County convictions and 44-years-to-life sentence. He claimed that his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated. A California appellate court had previously overturned one conviction but upheld two others.
The court found that Ruiz’s claim could be considered under the federal habeas statute and required a response from the respondent. It ordered the clerk to send the petition to the California Attorney General and gave the respondent 60 days to file an answer and relevant documents. Ruiz may file a response within 30 days after receiving the answer.
Magistrate Judge Allie Kim did not decide whether Ruiz is entitled to habeas relief. Instead, the court issued an order requiring the respondent to show why the writ should not be granted.
The detailed version
- Ruiz v. Covello · No. 3:22-cv-05777
- Sallie Kim
- Nov. 10, 2022
Background
Benjamin Ramirez Ruiz, identified as a state prisoner incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of convictions and a sentence from the Alameda County Superior Court. A jury convicted him of forcible rape of a child under 14, continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14, and oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years old or younger. He was sentenced to 44 years to life.
On appeal, the California Court of Appeals set aside the conviction under California Penal Code § 288.7(b) but upheld the convictions under §§ 261(a)(2) and 288.5(a).
Claim and Initial Review
Ruiz raised a claim that his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated. The court stated that, liberally construed, the claim appeared cognizable under § 2254 and warranted an answer from the respondent. The order did not decide whether the claim was meritorious or whether Ruiz should receive habeas relief.
Order
The court ordered the clerk to serve the order, petition, and attachments electronically on the Attorney General of California. It ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer within 60 days, including documents relevant to the issues in the petition and an explanation of why the writ should not be granted. If Ruiz wished to respond, he was required to file and serve a traverse within 30 days after receiving the answer.
Disposition
Judge Allie Kim issued an order to show cause and required an answer from the respondent. This was an initial procedural step in the habeas case, not a decision on the merits of Ruiz’s confrontation claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.