Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06958/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06958-0/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\7.27.2007\06-06958 Johnson06958_osc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY M. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ANTHONY KANE, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-06958 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING APPLICATION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT

(Docket No. 2)

Petitioner, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility, 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. Petitioner 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 Los Angeles of murder, attempted robbery and

burglary. He was sentenced to a term of 26 years to life in state prison. In 2004, 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. .

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

Case 5:06-cv-06958-JW Document 9 Filed 07/27/07 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\7.27.2007\06-06958 Johnson06958_osc.wpd 2

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 that the BPT’s denial of parole violated his Fourteenth

Amendment right to due process. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claim is

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

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 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. 

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

Case 5:06-cv-06958-JW Document 9 Filed 07/27/07 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\7.27.2007\06-06958 Johnson06958_osc.wpd 3

petitioner is served with respondent's answer. 

3. Respondent may, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this order,

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 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). 

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. 

7. In light of petitioner’s payment of the filing fee, the application to

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot.

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

DATED: July 19 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:06-cv-06958-JW Document 9 Filed 07/27/07 Page 3 of 3