Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00847/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00847-0/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

RONALD KEITH MAUZEY, 

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 08-847 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

INTRODUCTION

Ronald Keith Mauzey, 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. His in forma pauperis application also is before the

court for consideration. 

BACKGROUND

Mauzey states in his petition that he was convicted in Riverside County Superior

Court of conspiracy to commit murder and was sentenced in 1993 to a term of 25 years to life

in prison (although the attachments to the petition suggest Mauzey also was convicted of

additional crimes and that the conviction occurred in 1983). His petition does not challenge

his conviction but instead challenges a May 4, 2006 decision by the Board of Parole

Hearings ("BPH") to find him not suitable for parole. The exhibits to the petition indicate

that Mauzey filed a habeas petition in the Riverside County Superior Court, a habeas petition

in the California Court of Appeal, and a petition for review in the California Supreme Court

before 

Case 3:08-cv-00847-MHP Document 3 Filed 05/09/08 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

filing this action. 

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).

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

because it was not supported by some evidence and was made in continued reliance on the

commitment offense. Liberally construed, the allegations present a cognizable claim for a

due process violation based on insufficiency of the evidence. 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). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition warrants 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. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before July 25, 2008, 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

Case 3:08-cv-00847-MHP Document 3 Filed 05/09/08 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

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 August 29, 2008. 

5. The answer and memorandum in support of the answer may not exceed a

combined total of 25 pages in length. The traverse and memorandum in support of the

traverse may not exceed a combined total of 15 pages in length.

6. 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).

7. The in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2008 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00847-MHP Document 3 Filed 05/09/08 Page 3 of 3