Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01627/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01627-0/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.jf\hc.04\Ngo627osc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIET MIKE NGO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

J. SOLIS, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-1627 JF (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 challenging his liberty interest in parole. Petitioner

has paid the filing fee. The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the petition

should not be granted. 

STATEMENT

In 1989, Petitioner was sentenced to seventeen years-to-life in state prison after his

second degree murder conviction in Santa Clara Superior Court. Petitioner alleges that a

negative Life Prisoner Evaluation report was prepared in conjunction with his Board of

Prison Terms’ parole hearing and subsequent denial of parole. Petitioner maintains that

this negative report was issued in retaliation for his exercising his First Amendment rights

**Original filed 9/30/06**

Case 5:04-cv-01627-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 5
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.jf\hc.04\Ngo627osc 2

in filing civil rights complaints, writs and grievances at San Quentin and Avenal State

Prison. Petitioner requests that this negative report be expunged from his central prison

file. Petitioner filed state habeas petitions in the state superior court, appellate court, and

supreme court. All of these petitions were denied as of March 30, 2004. Petitioner filed

the instant federal habeas petition on April 26, 2004. 

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 Claim

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner alleges that: (1) he has a limited

constitutional right to have incorrect information expunged from his record; (2) he has a

protected liberty interest in parole that has been violated by the use of uncorroborated and

erroneous information in a Life Prisoner Evaluation Report prepared in conjunction with

the Board of Prison Terms’ parole suitability hearing. This negative report was issue in

retaliation for Petitioner’s exercise of his First Amendment rights in filing civil rights

complaints, writs and grievances during his incarceration at San Quentin State Prison and

Avenal State Prison; and (3) his Due Process and First Amendment rights have been

violated by a pattern of retaliation for the lawful exercise of his right to file grievances

and lawsuits. This negative Life Prisoner Evaluation Report prepared at Avenal State

Prison was another incident of retaliation against Petitioner which culminated in his

transfer after staff at Avenal State Prison threatened his life. Petitioner requests that this

negative report be expunged from his Central file. 

Case 5:04-cv-01627-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 5
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.jf\hc.04\Ngo627osc 3

Liberally construed, Petitioner’s allegations are 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 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, and any supporting documentation that is 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.” 

\\\

\\\

Case 5:04-cv-01627-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 5
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.jf\hc.04\Ngo627osc 4

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: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

9/30/06

Case 5:04-cv-01627-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 4 of 5
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.jf\hc.04\Ngo627osc 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Viet Mike Ngo

E-21895

CTF - Soledad 

P.O. Box 689

Soledad, CA 93960-0689

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Case 5:04-cv-01627-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 5 of 5