Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05400/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05400-0/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

Partial Dismissal Order; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Stiner400osc

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY STINER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

S.W. ORNOSKI, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-5400 JF (PR)

PARTIAL DISMISSAL

ORDER; ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the Board of Prison Terms’ (“Board”)

denial of parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court will dismiss three of

Petitioner’s claims and order Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted as to the remaining claims. 

STATEMENT

Petitioner was sentenced to five years-to-life in state prison after his conviction for 

second degree murder in Los Angeles Superior Court. Petitioner challenges the Board of

Prison Terms’ failure to grant him parole at his April 5, 2005 parole suitability hearing. 

Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on December 29, 2005.

**Original filed 9/30/06**

Case 5:05-cv-05400-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Partial Dismissal Order; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Stiner400osc

DISCUSSION

A. 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). 

A district 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. 

B. Petitioner’s Claim

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner alleges: (1) the Board ignores the

plain language and legislative intent of [California] Penal Code § 3041; (2) the Board

violates the mandate of the statutory parole scheme which requires that parole shall

normally be granted; (3) the Board’s failure to use the matrix in order to quantify the

factors present in murders and produce proportionate sentences for murders violates due

process; (4) the proper application of the “some evidence” standard requires that there be

some evidence that is probative of present dangerousness and the use of the “some

evidence” standard to review Board of Prison Terms’ decisions violates due process; (5)

the Board violates due process in routinely characterizing murders as being “particularly

cruel or egregious” and is arbitrary; and (6) the Board improperly denied parole because

petitioner had not completed vocational training.

Claims one, two, and six are not cognizable in a federal habeas action because a

writ of habeas corpus is available under § 2254(a) “only on the basis of some

transgression of federal law binding on the state courts.” Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d

1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)), cert. denied,

478 U.S. 1021 (1986). It is unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged error in

the interpretation or application of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68

(1991); Engle, 456 U.S. at 119. Petitioner has not specified any violation of federal law

Case 5:05-cv-05400-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Partial Dismissal Order; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Stiner400osc

in these claims. These claims, therefore, will be dismissed without leave to amend. The

Court orders Respondent to show cause why the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

should not be granted as to the remaining claims. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition 

and all attachments thereto upon the Respondent and the Respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this

order on the Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty

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 granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of

all portions of the state parole 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 days of his receipt of the

answer.

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 thirty days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and

serve on Petitioner a reply within fifteen 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. 

Case 5:05-cv-05400-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Partial Dismissal Order; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Stiner400osc

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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

9/30/06

Case 5:05-cv-05400-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Partial Dismissal Order; Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Stiner400osc

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Larry Stiner

B-19861

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Case 5:05-cv-05400-JF Document 3 Filed 10/02/06 Page 5 of 5