Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01583/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01583-0/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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY TROXELL, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Acting

Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1583 TEH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket No. 2)

On March 20, 2007, this matter was transferred to this Court from the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Petitioner, a

state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City,

California, filed a pro se petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 challenging the California Board of Prison Terms' ("BPT") decision to deny

him parole. This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should

not be granted. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court

of the State of California in and for the County of Fresno of murder, robbery and

an enhancement for a prior and sentenced to a term of 26 years-to-life in state

prison in 1979. Petitioner has been found unsuitable for parole each time he has

appeared before the BPT. Petitioner alleges that his claims have been exhausted

before the California Supreme Court.

Case 3:07-cv-01583-TEH Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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

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). 

It 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." Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner raises two claims for federal habeas corpus relief. He contends:

1) that the Board has violated the terms of his 1979 plea agreement; and 2) that

the board has violated his constitutional rights by requiring that he become a

confidential informant in order to be able to fulfill the requirements necessary for

him to be found eligible for parole. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims

appear colorable under § 2254 and merits an answer from respondent. See Biggs

v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that initial refusal to

set parole date for prisoner with 15-to-life sentence implicated prisoner’s liberty

interest in release on parole which cannot be denied without adequate procedural

due process protections).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petition and all attachments thereto on Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of

this order on Petitioner. 

Case 3:07-cv-01583-TEH Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

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. Respondent shall file with the answer and

serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been

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

presented by the petition. 

3. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by

filing a traverse with the court and serving it on Respondent within 30 days of his

receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/16/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01583-TEH Document 6 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 3