Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04899/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04899-4/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIASER R. RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-5507 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

DIRECTING CLERK TO

SUBSTITUTE BEN CURRY AS

RESPONDENT

On October 30, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility at Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the reversal by Governor

Schwarzenegger (“Governor”) of a 2006 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings

(“Board”) to grant petitioner parole. On April 11, 2008, the Court found the petition stated

cognizable claims for relief. The Court determined that the petition could not go forward,

however, because a proper respondent had not been named. Specifically, petitioner had

identified “Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor,” and “State of California,” as respondents,

but had not named the state officer having custody of petitioner. See Rule 2, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Court granted petitioner leave to file an amendment to

the petition to substitute, as the respondent, the warden of the prison in which petitioner

currently is incarcerated.

On April 18, 2008, petitioner filed an amendment to the petition naming Ben Curry,

the warden of the Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, as his custodian. Accordingly,

Case 3:07-cv-04899-MMC Document 12 Filed 08/19/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to substitute Warden Ben Curry as the respondent

to the petition.

As the Court found in its prior order, petitioner has stated a cognizable claim for relief

based on his assertion that the Governor’s reversal of the Board’s decision to grant petitioner

parole was not based on sufficient reliable evidence, in violation of due process. 

Accordingly, respondent will be ordered to respond to the petition, as set forth below. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall substitute Warden Ben Curry as the respondent in this

action.

2. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition, and all

attachments thereto (Docket No. 1), on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney

General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on

petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

days of the date this order is filed, 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 based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. 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’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

answer is filed.

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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

Case 3:07-cv-04899-MMC Document 12 Filed 08/19/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

the date any opposition is filed.

5. 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. 

6. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and 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).

7. 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: August 19, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04899-MMC Document 12 Filed 08/19/08 Page 3 of 3