Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03503/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03503-0/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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS W. PRATT,

Petitioner,

 vs.

Warden ORNOSKI,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-3503 PJH (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS; DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner alleges that his

right to due process was violated when the Board of Prison Terms ("BPT") found him not

suitable for parole.

Respondent has moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

contending that petitioner has no liberty interest in parole and therefore no federal due

process rights in connection with parole decisions. Respondent also contends that the

petition is insufficient to plead a claim for federal habeas relief because petitioner does not

say which parole denial hearing he is challenging. Petitioner has opposed the motion; it is

ready for decision. 

DISCUSSION

Respondent contends that a decision of the California Supreme Court, In re

Dannenberg, 34 Cal. 4th 1061 (2005), establishes that California prisoners have no liberty

interest in parole and that prisoners therefore have no federal due process rights in

connection with parole decisions. The Ninth Circuit has rejected this contention, so this

ground for the motion is without merit. See Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 461

F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2006).

Case 4:05-cv-03503-PJH Document 12 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Respondent also contends that it is impossible to respond to the petition when

petitioner has failed to say which parole hearing he is attacking. In the opposition petitioner

makes clear that he is attacking his 2005 hearing, and contends that should have been

obvious because it is the only one as to which the federal statute of limitations has not

expired. Whether the date might have been deduced or not, the petition is required to "set

forth the facts supporting each of the grounds ...." Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254

Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A petitioner has not "set forth the facts supporting" the

allegations of the petition if he or she does not say which hearing is at issue. The motion to

dismiss will be granted on this ground, the dismissal being with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

The motion to dismiss (document number 8 on the docket) is GRANTED. The

petition is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended petition within thirty days which

specifies the parole hearing to which it is directed. The amended petition must include the

caption and case number used in this order and the words AMENDED PETITION on the

first page. Because the petition will completely replace the original, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), petitioner should include in it all the claims he wants

to raise. He need not, however, refile the many exhibits he submitted in support of the

petition; these will be considered in ruling on the amended petition. Failure to amend within

the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.05\PRATT503.DWLTA

Case 4:05-cv-03503-PJH Document 12 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 2