Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03599/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03599-0/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

JORGE SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden, 

Respondent(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No C 07-3599 VRW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 USC § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole

Hearings' ("BPH") September 29, 2005 decision to deny him parole. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pleaded guilty to second degree murder in the Superior Court of

the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles and, on August 3,

1990, was sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison. 

On September 28, 2004, the BPH (formerly BPT) held a parole suitability

hearing, found petitioner suitable for parole and set a parole date; however, on

February 25, 2005, the governor reversed the BPH's parole suitability

determination and revoked the parole date. (Petitioner's challenge to the

governor's revocation is pending in Sanchez v Kane, No. 06-3438 VRW (PR)).

Case 3:07-cv-03599-VRW Document 2 Filed 11/19/07 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

On September 29, 2005, the BPH held another parole suitability hearing,

but this time found petitioner not suitable for parole and denied him a subsequent

hearing for one year. 

Petitioner has unsuccessfully challenged the BPH's September 29, 2005

decision in the state courts. On April 11, 2007, the Supreme Court of California

denied review of his final petition for state habeas relief. 

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 USC § 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 claims that the BPH's September 29, 2005 decision to deny him

parole, and a subsequent hearing for one year, does not comport with due

process. Specifically, petitioner claims that the decision is not supported by the 

evidence. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claim appears colorable under § 2254

and merits an answer from respondent. See Sass v Cal Bd of Prison Terms, 461

F3d 1123, 1127-29 (9th Cir 2006) (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); Biggs v

Terhune, 334 F3d 910, 914-15 (9th Cir 2003) (same).

/

Case 3:07-cv-03599-VRW Document 2 Filed 11/19/07 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 G:\PRO-SE\VRW\HC.07\Sanchez, J1.or1.wpd 3

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, 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

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.

 VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03599-VRW Document 2 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 3