Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01559/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01559-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUC MINH LAM,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A. P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1559 TEH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On May 10, 2006, Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the

Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, filed a pro se petitions for a

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of

Prison Terms' ("BPT") decision to deny him parole. Petitioner has paid the filing

fee. This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court

of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles of Second Degree

Murder and sentenced to a term of 17 years-to-life in state prison in 1987. 

Petitioner has been found unsuitable for parole each time he has appeared before

the BPT. He specifically challenges the BPT’s decision which was finalized on

January 13, 2006 after his fourth parole consideration hearing finding him not

Case 3:07-cv-01559-TEH Document 5 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 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 2

suitable for parole. Petitioner’s claims have been exhausted before the California

Supreme Court.

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 he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

It 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." Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from the BPT's decision

finding him not suitable for parole on the grounds that the decision violates his

rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Liberally construed,

Petitioner’s claims appear colorable under § 2254 and merits an answer from

respondent. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding

that initial refusal to set parole date for prisoner with 15-to-life sentence

implicated prisoner’s liberty interest in release on parole which cannot be denied

without adequate procedural due process protections).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve by certified 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. 

Case 3:07-cv-01559-TEH Document 5 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 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 3

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

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. 

3. 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 30 days of his

receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/11/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01559-TEH Document 5 Filed 10/11/07 Page 3 of 3