Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01029/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01029-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

W. LYNN McCLORE,

Petitioner, 

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-1029 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. He has paid the filing fee. 

 The petition attacks denial of parole, so venue is proper in this district, which is where

petitioner is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) (venue proper in both district of conviction and

district of confinement).

STATEMENT

In 1987 a jury convicted petitioner of kidnaping and robbery. He received a sentence of

seven years to life plus one year in prison. He alleges that he has exhausted these parole claims

by way of state habeas petitions. 

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

Case 3:07-cv-01029-WHA Document 4 Filed 10/12/07 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

2

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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient

are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d

1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

It is unclear what petitioner is trying to claim. He says that the Board of Prison Terms

refuses to set a “term consistent with his crime,” but in his memorandum of points and

authorities sets out the issue thus: “The California Board of Prison [Term]’s failure to set a

term consistent with the crime in which petitioner is incarcerated and negligently demonstrates

no future endeavor to adhere to the laws governing petitioner’s conviction forcing petition to

serve a term reserved for first and second degree murder violates his right[]s to due process and

equal protection of the laws.” (Pet. P & A at 6(a) (capitalization modified).) 

To the extent petitioner is trying to contend that the Board has a federal constitutional

obligation to set a set term of years for him which would be consistent with his offense, he is

incorrect; there is no such federal due process right arising directly from the Constitution, and

no such right could arise from state law because state law does not require such a term-setting. 

See In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal. 4th 1061, 1082-84 (2005). 

On the other hand, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in ruling on

petitioner’s state habeas petition, treated it as presenting a contention that parole hearings were

Case 3:07-cv-01029-WHA Document 4 Filed 10/12/07 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

3

not being held within the time required by state law (Pet., exh. A). Again, this would appear to

be purely a state-law contention, and one that does not afford a remedy, according to the

superior court.

On the other hand, in the body of petitioner’s points and authorities he argues, among

other things, that he has been denied parole based solely on the characteristics of his long-ago

crime, evidence which he contends is not sufficient to be the “some evidence” necessary to

satisfy due process in parole-eligibility cases. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 916-17 (9th

Cir. 2003) (warning that repeated denial of parole based on unchanging characteristics of

offense might violate due process); McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 904 (9th Cir. 2002)

(due process requires that at least “some evidence” support parole denial). If this is a claim

petitioner intended to present, though not mentioned in the form petition or the statement of the

issue in his points and authorities, he must set it out as a separate issue and specify the parole

hearing he is seeking to attack. 

It is also possible, judging from argument in the points and authorities, that petitioner is

attempting to claim that his plea bargain has been breached,. that the time he has had to serve

amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, and that he has been denied equal protection – but it

not possible to be sure. Petitioner must make clear whether he is making these claims.

The petition will be dismissed with leave to amend. If petitioner chooses to amend, he

should bear in mind that this Court can grant relief only for violation of federal law, usually the

Constitution. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). He thus must allege facts

which suggest a constitutional violation, not just a violation of state law. Also, if his claim

arises from events at a parole eligibility hearing, he must specify when that hearing was. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty days from the date this

order is entered. The amendment must include the caption and civil case number used in this

order and the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Failure to amend within the

designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims. 

///

Case 3:07-cv-01029-WHA Document 4 Filed 10/12/07 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

4

2. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner 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: October 11 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.07\mcclore1029.dwla.wpd 

Case 3:07-cv-01029-WHA Document 4 Filed 10/12/07 Page 4 of 4