Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00129/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00129-0/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

N:\MJJ\Week of 7.16.07\dixie.osc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LEWIS DIXIE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

R. HOREL,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

C 07-0129 MJJ (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket No. 4)

Petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro

se habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the loss of time credits

stemming from a prison disciplinary proceeding. He has applied for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

BACKGROUND

In 2005, petitioner and his cellmate received Rules Violation Reports (“RVR”)

charging them with theft of state property. At a subsequent disciplinary hearing, prison

officials found petitioner guilty, and assessed a penalty that included the loss of 60 days of

good time credits. Petitioner thereafter unsuccessfully challenged this discipline in

administrative appeals within the prison system, as well as a state habeas petition in the

California Supreme Court. 

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

Case 3:07-cv-00129-VRW Document 7 Filed 07/17/07 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

N:\MJJ\Week of 7.16.07\dixie.osc.wpd 2

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. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims the discipline he received violated his right to due process because

he was not allowed to call witnesses or present documentary evidence in his defense at the

disciplinary hearing. Liberally construed, this claim is cognizable.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order,

petition, and all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney

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

petitioner.

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 90 days of

the date this order is filed, 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 based on petitioner’s cognizable claim. 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 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

3. Respondent may, within 90 days, 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

30 days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Case 3:07-cv-00129-VRW Document 7 Filed 07/17/07 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

N:\MJJ\Week of 7.16.07\dixie.osc.wpd 3

petitioner a reply within 15 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. 

5. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

7. In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma

pauperis is GRANTED.

This order terminates docket number 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

 MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00129-VRW Document 7 Filed 07/17/07 Page 3 of 3