Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03836/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03836-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOMER GENE MCWILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

 v.

EDDIE YLST, Warden, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-3836 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS; SETTING NEW

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

(Docket No. 6)

On May 25, 2006, in the Central District of California, petitioner, a California

prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the

denial of parole by the California Board of Prison Hearings (“BPH”). On June 20, 2006, the

case was transferred to the Northern District. On December 8, 2006, petitioner was ordered

to pay the filing fee, which he has done. On May 10, 2007, after reviewing the petition, the

Court ordered respondent to file an answer showing cause why the petition should not be

granted, or in the alternative, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. 

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the

allegations in the petition are inadequate to establish standing, and are too vague to state a

claim for habeas corpus relief. Petitioner has filed an opposition, respondent has filed a

reply, and petitioner has filed a sur-reply. Having read and considered the parties’ respective

submissions, the Court rules as follows. 

Case 3:06-cv-03836-MMC Document 10 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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

BACKGROUND

In 1984, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, petitioner was convicted of second

degree murder, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement; he was sentenced to a term of fifteen

years to life in state prison. Thereafter, on a date not disclosed in the petition, the BPH

denied petitioner parole. 

DISCUSSION

In the instant petition, petitioner claims that the BPH, by denying him parole, violated

his right to due process and equal protection, and breached the terms of his plea agreement. 

In support of his claims, petitioner refers to documents and exhibits attached to the petition. 

Respondent moves to dismiss the petition as inadequate to establish standing, and too

vague to state a claim for habeas corpus relief, because petitioner (1) does not specify in the

petition the parole hearing being challenged; (2) does not provide attachments to the petition

that would enable respondent to identify the hearing at issue; and (3) does not set forth the

terms of the plea agreement. 

In opposition to the motion to dismiss, petitioner asserts that the contours of his claims

can easily be discerned from the attachments to his petition. He states that he submitted for

filing with his petition the following documents and exhibits: “(A) mental health reports, 

(B) correctional counselor reports, (C) the complete parole hearing transcripts of the hearing

that is being challenged, as well as the decision portion of every parole hearing before that, 

(D) Los Angeles Superior Court documents, (E) Appeals Court documents, (F) CA Supreme

Court documents, (G) U.S. District Court documents.” (Opp. at 2.)

In reply to petitioner’s opposition, respondent states that no documents or exhibits are

attached to the petition that was served on respondent with the Court’s order to show cause. 

(Reply at 2.) Further, respondent’s counsel states that both she and her paralegal contacted

the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District and were told that the court file does not

contain the above-referenced documents or exhibits. (Reply at 2 & Declaration of Counsel

attached thereto.)

In his sur-reply, petitioner maintains that the documents and exhibits were attached to

Case 3:06-cv-03836-MMC Document 10 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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

his petition when he submitted the petition to the Central District of California for filing. 

Consequently, he argues, he should not be held responsible if the documents and exhibits did

not arrive with the petition when it was transferred to the Northern District. He offers to

make additional copies of the documents and exhibits for the Court and respondent. 

The Court has confirmed that the subject documents and exhibits are not attached to

the petition that was transferred to the Northern District from the Central District, and that

they are not otherwise part of the court file. The Court has been advised, however, by the

Clerk of the Court for the Central District, that the documents and exhibits were received

with the petition when it was filed in the Central District, and that they remain there. 

Accordingly, the Court has asked the Clerk for the Central District to mail the documents and

exhibits to the Northern District. When the documents and exhibits are received in the

Northern District, they will be filed and docketed in the instant action, and the Court will

direct the Clerk for the Northern District to serve respondent with a copy of the documents

and exhibits. 

As noted, respondent’s motion to dismiss is based on the premise that the petition is

inadequate to establish standing, and too vague to state a claim for habeas corpus relief,

because neither the petition nor any attachments thereto specify the parole hearing being

challenged or set forth the terms of petitioner’s plea agreement. Petitioner represents that the

documents and exhibits he references in his petition provide all of the information that

respondent seeks. Because respondent did not have the benefit of reviewing the noted

documents and exhibits before he filed the instant motion to dismiss, the Court will deny the

motion to dismiss without prejudice, as premature. Once respondent receives the documents

and exhibits, he shall file an answer to the petition, or in the alternative, a motion to dismiss

on procedural grounds, according to the briefing schedule set forth below. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is DENIED without prejudice. 

(Docket No. 6.)

Case 3:06-cv-03836-MMC Document 10 Filed 11/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2. Within sixty (60) days of the date respondent is served with a copy of the

documents and exhibits as set forth above, respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

petitioner, 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 granted based on

petitioner’s cognizable claims. 

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 the date the answer is filed.

3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within sixty (60) days of the date

respondent is served with a copy of the documents and exhibits as set forth above, a motion

to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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

within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the

Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any opposition is

filed.

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. 

5. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

This order terminates Docket No. 6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 15, 2007 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03836-MMC Document 10 Filed 11/15/07 Page 4 of 4