Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05104/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05104-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY CLIFFORD,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-5104 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

He has paid the filing fee.

 The petition attacks denial of parole, so venue is proper in this district, which is

where petitioner is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder in 1991. He received a sentence of

fifteen years to life in prison. He alleges that he has exhausted these parole claims by way

of state habeas petitions. 

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). 

///

Case 4:07-cv-05104-PJH Document 2 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

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

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that his due process rights

were denied when on March 28, 2006, the Board denied him parole for the fourth time

based on the circumstances of his crime.

These claims are sufficient to require a response. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d

910, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (warning that repeated denial of parole based on unchanging

characteristics of offense might violate due process); McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d

895, 904 (9th Cir. 2002) (due process requires that at least “some evidence” support

parole denial). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

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

attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

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

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

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 trial 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

Case 4:07-cv-05104-PJH Document 2 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

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. 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 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\CLIFFORD5104.OSC.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-05104-PJH Document 2 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 3