Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05285/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05285-2/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)

---

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ALLEN CLARK,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-05285-JD 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

James Allen Clark, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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); Rose v. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 

habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 

must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 

each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 

of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

Case 3:14-cv-05285-JD Document 13 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 4
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 California

II. LEGAL CLAIMS

Clark was convicted in 1989 in Sonoma County Superior Court which is in this district. 

He is currently incarcerated in California State Prison Solano, which is in the Eastern District of 

California. He states that he was sentenced to life without parole. In this petition, he argues that 

he was sentenced under the Indeterminate Sentencing Law (“ISL”) which is governed by the 

Determinate Sentencing Law (“DSL”) adopted in 1977. He states that the court, Bureau of Parole 

Hearings (“BPH”), and prison are using repealed legal standards to set his release date.

Clark’s specific claim is not clear. He states that he was sentenced to life without parole, 

so he will not be paroled. Assuming he is entitled to a parole date, Clark has not specifically 

articulated a federal constitutional violation. To the extent he has been denied parole by the BPH, 

he must bring that claim in the district where the denial occurred. He is also advised that on 

January 24, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 

(2011). The Supreme Court held that “[i]n the context of parole . . . the procedures required [by 

the due process clause] are minimal . . . an opportunity to be heard and . . . a statement of the 

reasons why parole was denied . . . ‘[t]he Constitution . . . does not require more.” Swarthout, 562 

U.S. at 220. As long as the petitioner received at least that much process, the federal court’s 

habeas review is at an end. Id. If Clark’s sentence provides the possibility of parole, but does not

guarantee a parole date, it carries with it the potential that he could serve the entire term. See 

Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that prisoners serving 

indeterminate life prison sentences [i.e., those whose life sentences do not include ‘without the 

possibility of parole’] may serve up to life in prison, but may be considered for parole after serving 

minimum terms of confinement). The petition is dismissed with leave to amend to address the 

deficiencies discussed above.

CONCLUSION

1. The petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended petition must be 

filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption and 

civil case number used in this order and the words amended petition on the first page. 

Case 3:14-cv-05285-JD Document 13 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 4
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 California

2. Failure to file an amended petition will result in dismissal of this action

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05285-JD Document 13 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ALLEN CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-05285-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on September 29, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

James Allen Clark ID: E12050

California State Prison, Solano III

P.O. Box 4000 Facility AG-113

Vacaville, CA 95696-4000 

Dated: September 29, 2015

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:14-cv-05285-JD Document 13 Filed 09/29/15 Page 4 of 4