Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05512/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05512-0/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)

---

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

JUAN MANUEL CHAVEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-5512 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 nolo contendere to second degree murder in 1993. 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 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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

Case 4:07-cv-05512-PJH Document 4 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 4
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

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes

(quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which

appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon

v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

The petition is directed to a denial of parole by the Board of Parole Hearings on

March 5, 2007. As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) His due

process rights were denied when the Board denied him parole based on the long-ago

circumstances of his crime; (2) the Board’s refusal to give him a parole date violated his

California statutory right to good time credits; (3) the Board’s finding that petitioner needs

further therapy is not supported by “some evidence;” (4) the Board’s use of police reports

as “some evidence” violated due process and the Confrontation Clause; (5) there was no

evidence that petitioner’s offense was particularly “cruel and callous;” (6) there was not

“some evidence” to support the Board’s finding that it needed a new psychological report;

(7) there was no evidence to support the Board’s setting petitioner’s next hearing for two

years ahead, rather than one, given that the denial before this one was a one-year denial

and nothing had changed except to petitioner’s advantage; (8) counsel at trial was

ineffective in not explaining to petitioner that he would never be granted parole; (9) his Sixth

Amendment right to trial by jury was violated by the Board’s treating him as if he had been

convicted of a greater offense than the one he pleaded to; (10) his due process rights were

violated in that the Board’s finding contradicts that of the CDCR, which considers him “low

risk.”

Case 4:07-cv-05512-PJH Document 4 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 4
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

In issue two petitioner alleges only a violation of state law. Such allegations cannot

be the basis for federal habeas relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). 

Issue eight is a claim that trial counsel was ineffective, an issue which goes to the validity of

petitioner’s conviction. Petitioner cannot include a claim such as this, going to the

conviction, in the same petition with claims going to the denial of parole. See Rule 2(e),

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll.

2254. Finally, in issue ten petitioner complains that the Board’s decision is inconsistent

with that of the CDCR, but this cannot be the basis for habeas relief because there is no

constitutional right to consistent decisonmaking. For these reasons, issues two, eight and

ten will be dismissed. The others 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. Issues two, eight and ten are DISMISSED.

2. 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. 

3. 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.

Case 4:07-cv-05512-PJH Document 4 Filed 12/17/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

4. 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.

5. 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: December 17, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\CHAVEZ5512.OSC.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-05512-PJH Document 4 Filed 12/17/07 Page 4 of 4