Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01048/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01048-0/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

LUIS RODARTE, H-16012,

Petitioner,

 vs.

MARION SPEARMAN, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-1048 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Dkt. #2)

Petitioner, a state prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad,

California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 challenging the 2013 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings

(BPH) to deny him parole. 

BACKGROUND

In 1991, petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to

life in state prison after a jury found him guilty of second degree murder in San

Francisco County Superior Court. 

Petitioner has been found not suitable for parole each time he has appeared

before the BPH. On February 11, 2015, the Supreme Court of California denied

his challenge to the BPH’s 2013 decision.

Case 3:15-cv-01048-CRB Document 6 Filed 04/20/15 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

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 BPH’s 2013 decision

finding him not suitable for parole on the ground that the decision violates the

constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Among other things,

petitioner claims that the application of stricter judicial interpretations of the

parole suitability standard and of Marsy’s Law to him amount to an

impermissible application of ex post fact laws. Liberally construed, petitioner’s

ex post facto claims appear minimally cognizable under § 2254 and merit an

answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.

2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus

liberally). But cf. Gilman v. Schwarzenegger, 638 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir.

2011) (reversing preliminary injunction against application of Marsy’s Law on

ground that plaintiffs were not “likely to succeed on the merits of their ex post

facto claim”).

/

/

/ 

Case 3:15-cv-01048-CRB Document 6 Filed 04/20/15 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

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28

U.S.C. § 1915 (dkt. #2) is GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall serve 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. 

3. 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 or proceeding

that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of

the issues presented by the petition. 

4. 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: April 15, 2015 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.15\Rodarte, L.15-1048.osc.wpd

Case 3:15-cv-01048-CRB Document 6 Filed 04/20/15 Page 3 of 3