Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01838/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01838-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order to Show Cause 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Reyes838osc.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABEL P. REYES,

Petitioner,

 vs.

HEADPASS, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-1838 RMW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Eastern District of California challenging a disciplinary

hearing. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. On April 29, 2010, the

Eastern District of California transferred the case to the Northern District of California. The

court orders respondent to show cause as to why the petition should not be granted. 

BACKGROUND

According to his petition, petitioner was issued a Rules Violation Report (RVR) at

Pleasant Valley State Prison for violation of the California Code of Regulations, Title 15 § 3005,

 battery on an inmate with a weapon. He pled not guilty and was provided with an institutional

disciplinary hearing on December 23, 2007. Petitioner was found guilty as charged. He was

assessed 360 days loss of behavioral credit and a two year term in the Secured Housing Unit. 

*E-FILED - 5/11/10*

Case 5:10-cv-01838-RMW Document 10 Filed 05/11/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order to Show Cause 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Reyes838osc.wpd 2

Petitioner filed the instant petition alleging that his due process rights were violated

during his disciplinary hearing. Petitioner filed a state habeas petition which was denied on

December 19, 2008. Petitioner’s state habeas petition to the California Court of Appeal was

denied on August 21, 2009. Petitioner’s state habeas petition to the California Supreme Court

was denied on February 18, 2010. The underlying petition was filed on March 25, 2010.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for 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); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that his rights to due process were

violated during his disciplinary hearing. Petitioner’s procedural due process challenges to his

disciplinary proceeding are properly brought in a habeas petition because success in this action

would shorten the length of his confinement. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747

(1998) (holding that any claim by a prisoner attacking the validity or duration of his confinement

must be brought under the habeas sections of Title 28 of the United States Code). Liberally

construed, petitioner’s allegation is sufficient to require a response.

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition 

and all attachments thereto upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney

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

petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of

Case 5:10-cv-01838-RMW Document 10 Filed 05/11/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order to Show Cause 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Reyes838osc.wpd 3

the issuance of this order, 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 granted. 

Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state

parole record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of

the issues presented by the petition. 

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 thirty days of his receipt of the answer.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the court and serve on

respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty days of receipt of the

motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen

days of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded that

all communications with the court must be served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the

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

change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

5/11/10

Case 5:10-cv-01838-RMW Document 10 Filed 05/11/10 Page 3 of 3