Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00815/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00815-0/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

ROBERT LEE FRYBURGER,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 07-815 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

INTRODUCTION

Robert Lee Fryburger, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed

this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition

is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Fryburger was convicted in Fresno County Superior Court of second degree murder

and was sentenced on an unstated date to a term of 15 years to life in prison. His petition

does not challenge his conviction but instead challenges a January 4, 2006 decision by the

Board of Parole Hearings ("BPH") to find him not suitable for parole. See Petition, p. 15:12. 

Fryburger alleges that he filed habeas petitions in state courts, including the California

Supreme Court, before filing this action. 

Case 3:07-cv-00815-MHP Document 3 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 3
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

DISCUSSION

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). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

Fryburger alleges in his petition that the BPH's decision violated his right to due

process because it was not supported by some evidence and the BPH continues to rely on the

unchanging facts regarding his crime. Liberally construed, the allegations present

cognizable claims for a due process violation. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369

(1987); Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2006). 

The only parole decision at issue in this case is the 2006 parole decision, see Petition,

p. 15, and not any of the earlier decisions even though Fryburger has attached bits and pieces

from several parole decisions to his petition. Multiple decision cannot be challenged in a

single petition because there are procedural issues (e.g., exhaustion and timeliness) unique to

each decision challenged. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition's due process claims warrant a response from respondent. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

Case 3:07-cv-00815-MHP Document 3 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before September 7,

2007, 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 issued. Respondent must

file with the answer a copy of all portions of the parole hearing record that have been

previously transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition.

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before October 12, 2007.

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 3, 2007 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00815-MHP Document 3 Filed 07/05/07 Page 3 of 3