Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00743/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00743-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD JAMES WILLARD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0743 FCD DAD P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the failure of the Board of

Prison Terms (BPT or Board) to find him suitable for parole at two parole suitability hearings. 

He claims, among other things, that his rights pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments were violated because the Board disregarded regulations ensuring fair suitability

hearings and instead operated under a policy that all murderers be found unsuitable for parole

(claims IV and VI). Respondent did not address these claims in his answer filed January 5, 2005. 

On December 23, 2004, petitioner filed a motion for discovery. Respondent has not filed an

opposition to this motion. 

Good cause appearing, respondent will be directed to file an opposition to

petitioner’s discovery motion and an amended answer responding to petitioner’s claims

Case 2:04-cv-00743-FCD-DAD Document 18 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

numbered IV and VI, described above. Respondent will also be directed to file a paper copy of

his January 5, 2005 answer, in accordance with Local Rule 5-133(f). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of this order, respondent shall file an

opposition to petitioner’s December 23, 2004 motion for discovery and an amended answer

addressing petitioner’s claims that his rights pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

were violated because the Board disregarded regulations ensuring fair suitability hearings and

instead operated under a policy that all murderers be found unsuitable for parole; and

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, respondent shall file a paper

copy of his January 5, 2005 answer, in accordance with Local Rule 5-133(f).

DATED: June 2, 2005.

DAD:8

will743.o

Case 2:04-cv-00743-FCD-DAD Document 18 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2