Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03991/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03991-2/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)

---

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 1

Although petitioner initially appeared pro se, he is now represented by counsel.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY SNODGRASS,

Petitioner,

 v.

A.P. KANE,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-3991 MMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the California Training Facility,

Soledad, filed the above-titled amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the determination by the California Board of Prison Terms

(“Board”) that petitioner is unsuitable for parole.1

 On October 28, 2005, the Court ordered

respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. Thereafter, respondent

filed a motion to dismiss the petition. On February 3, 2006, the Court granted the motion to

dismiss, with leave to amend, due to the petition’s lack of specificity as to which of the

Board’s decisions petitioner wished to challenge. On March 5, 2006, petitioner filed an

amended petition.

BACKGROUND

In 1982, in Contra Costa County Superior Court, petitioner was convicted of second

degree murder, and was sentenced to a term of fifteen years to life in state prison. The Board

has denied him parole on ten occasions. At his November 22, 2002 parole consideration

hearing, the Board again denied him parole. In the instant petition, petitioner expressly

Case 3:05-cv-03991-MMC Document 14 Filed 06/14/06 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

challenges the Board’s November 22, 2002 denial of parole. He has challenged the Board’s

decision in habeas petitions filed at all three levels of the California courts. 

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);

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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the

petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims the Board has violated his Constitutional rights by denying him

parole without any relevant or material evidence to support its decision that he was a danger

to society, and by using an arbitrary and standardless process to determine whether he is

eligible for parole. Liberally construed, petitioner states a cognizable claim that the Board

has violated his federally protected liberty interest in being released on parole. 

CONCLUSION 

In light of the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 60 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 claim. 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 that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition and that

Case 3:05-cv-03991-MMC Document 14 Filed 06/14/06 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

have not previously been filed with the Court. 

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.

2. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 60 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

statement of non-opposition within 30 days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file

with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of receipt of any opposition.

3. 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. 

4. 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).

5. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 14, 2006 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03991-MMC Document 14 Filed 06/14/06 Page 3 of 3