Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06912/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06912-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\7.31.2007\06-06921 Diaz06912_osc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERBERT DIAZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-06912 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a pro se petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the Board of

Prison Terms’ finding that he was unsuitable for parole. He has paid the filing fee.

BACKGROUND

In 1983, petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the State

of California in and for the County of Ventura of first degree murder. He was

sentenced to a term of twenty-five years to life in state prison. In 2005, the Board of

Prison Terms (“BPT”) found him to be unsuitable for parole. He challenged the

BPT’s decision by way of habeas corpus petitions filed in all three levels of the

California courts, which petitions were denied. Thereafter, petitioner filed the

Case 5:06-cv-06912-JW Document 8 Filed 07/31/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\7.31.2007\06-06921 Diaz06912_osc.wpd 2

instant federal habeas corpus petition on November 6, 2006.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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). 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. Federal

courts have a duty to construe pro se petitions for a writ of habeas corpus liberally. 

Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001).

B. Claims

Petitioner claims: (1) the BPT’s decision violation of petitioner’s state liberty

interest in parole, an interested protected by his constitutional right to due process;

(2) the BPT’s decision was not based on a reasonable determination of the facts

insofar as the decision was not supported by sufficient evidence bearing an indicia of

reliability; (3) the BPT’s decision violates due process because there was not

sufficient evidence to indicate that he is a current and present danger to society; and

(4) the BPT’s reliance on the facts of the commitment offense because the offense

did not rise to the level of “egregiousness and callousness.” Liberally construed,

these claims are cognizable. Accordingly, respondent is directed to SHOW CAUSE

why the petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk of the court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order

Case 5:06-cv-06912-JW Document 8 Filed 07/31/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\7.31.2007\06-06921 Diaz06912_osc.wpd 3

and 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 the petitioner at his most current address.

2. Respondent shall file with this court and serve upon petitioner, no later

than ninety (60) 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 issued. 

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent no later than forty-five (45)

days of his receipt of the answer. Should petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be

deemed submitted and ready for decision forty-five (45) days after the date

petitioner is served with respondent's answer. 

3. Respondent may file, within ninety (90) days 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 to the motion no later than forty-five (45)

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

petitioner a reply no later than fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must

keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the

clerk of the court headed “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS,” and comply

with any orders of the court within the time allowed or ask for an extension of that

time. 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). 

Case 5:06-cv-06912-JW Document 8 Filed 07/31/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\7.31.2007\06-06921 Diaz06912_osc.wpd 4

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court, whether

by way of formal legal motions or informal letters, must be served on respondent by

mailing a true copy of the document to respondent's counsel. 

DATED: July 31, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:06-cv-06912-JW Document 8 Filed 07/31/07 Page 4 of 4