Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01084/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01084-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KASH REGISTER, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1084 DFL DAD P

vs.

STEVE MOORE, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is challenging two decisions of the

California Board of Prison Terms finding petitioner unsuitable for parole and denying petitioner

a parole date. The decisions were made by a panel of the Board after subsequent parole

consideration hearings held on May 9, 2002, and May 22, 2003. The matter is before the court

on respondents’ motion to dismiss.

Respondents assert that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over the

petition because there is no federally protected liberty interest in parole under California law. In

support of these contentions, respondents rely on Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 376

F. Supp. 2d 975 (E.D. Cal. 2005). The Sass case is set for oral argument in the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 16, 2006. (See Sass v. California Board of

Case 2:05-cv-01084-ALA Document 14 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Prison Terms, appellate docket # 05-16455, docket entry Jan. 26, 2006.) However, it is currently

binding Ninth Circuit law that California’s parole scheme does give rise to a cognizable liberty

interest in release on parole, even for prisoners who have not already been granted a parole date. 

McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir. 2002); Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914

(9th Cir. 2003). Good cause appearing, respondents’ motion to dismiss will be denied without

prejudice to the filing of a renewed motion, if appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that respondents’ August 25, 2005 motion to

dismiss is denied without prejudice. Not later than thirty days after a decision by the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals in the Sass appeal respondent shall file either a renewed motion to

dismiss or an answer.

DATED: February 24, 2006.

DAD:13

regi1084.dmtd

Case 2:05-cv-01084-ALA Document 14 Filed 02/24/06 Page 2 of 2