Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02231/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02231-0/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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\7.2.2007\04-02231 Parra02231_osc.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL

PARRA,

Petitioner,

v.

A. K. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-02231 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Salinas Valley State

Prison in Soledad, California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. Petitioner’s original

petition was dismissed with leave to amend as only one of the three claims for relief

was based on a federal right. Petitioner was granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in the same order of dismissal. Petitioner has filed an amended petition,

which is now before the Court for initial review. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior

Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda of second degree

Case 5:04-cv-02231-JW Document 9 Filed 06/29/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\7.2.2007\04-02231 Parra02231_osc.wpd 2

burglary (Cal. Penal Code § 211). It appears that petitioner was subject to sentence

enhancements under California’s “Three Strikes” law (§ 667.5), and was sentenced

to thirty-five years to life in state prison on or about January 17, 2003. 

According to the petition, petitioner appealed his conviction, and the

California Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in 2003. The Supreme Court of

California denied review in 2004. Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition on June

7, 2004. 

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 claims that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment

in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claim

appears cognizable under § 2254 and merits an answer from respondent. 

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 5:04-cv-02231-JW Document 9 Filed 06/29/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\7.2.2007\04-02231 Parra02231_osc.wpd 3

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

sixty (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.

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 thirty (30) days of his

receipt of the answer. 

3. Respondent may file 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 nonopposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file

with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of

any opposition.

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be

served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s

counsel. Petitioner must also keep the court and all parties informed of any change 

of address. 

DATED: June 29 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02231-JW Document 9 Filed 06/29/07 Page 3 of 3