Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-07324/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-07324-0/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

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CANDICE JENE CECILIA BERRETH,

Petitioner, 

v. 

JENKINS, Warden, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. 17-07324 EJD (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a federal prisoner at the Federal Prison Camp in Dublin, California, filed 

a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has 

paid the filing fee. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus from a person “in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241(c)(3). The 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. Summary 

Case 5:17-cv-07324-EJD Document 6 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 3
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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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). 

B. Legal Claims 

Petitioner claims that she was found ineligible for “3621e” due to her “current 

offense presenting a potential risk of physical force against another.” (Pet. at 2.) Federal 

prisoners may be eligible for earlier release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) for successful 

completion of the Residential Drug Abuse Program (“RDAP”). Petitioner challenges the 

denial of early release based on the following grounds: (1) she is a nonviolent offender; (2) 

current offense was ignored and there was reliance on sentencing enhancements; and (3) 

she successfully completed RDAP. (Pet. at 7-9.) Liberally construed, these claims are 

cognizable and merit an answer from Respondent. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

1. The Clerk shall serve by 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. 

 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. 

Case 5:17-cv-07324-EJD Document 6 Filed 04/16/18 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

 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 non-opposition within twentyeight (28) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve 

on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of receipt of any opposition. 

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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 keep the Court and all 

parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of 

Change of Address.” He 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). 

5. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time 

will be granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ ________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Order to Show Cause 

PRO-SE\EJD\HC.17\07324Berreth2241_osc 

4/16/2018

Case 5:17-cv-07324-EJD Document 6 Filed 04/16/18 Page 3 of 3