Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01089/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01089-0/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)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER MCCOTTRELL,

Petitioner, No. C 07-1089 PJH

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ROBERT L. AYERS, Warden, 

Respondent.

_______________________________/

Petitioner Walter McCottrell (“McCottrell”), a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

BACKGROUND

In 1977, McCottrell was convicted of kidnaping for robbery following a court trial in

Santa Clara County, and thereafter sentenced to seven years to life in prison on October

28, 1977. Around the same time, McCottrell pled guilty in San Diego County to two counts

of robbery in the first degree, and was sentenced to fifteen years to life in prison with a fiveyear to life enhancement for use of a firearm. He is now serving concurrent sentences.

McCottrell claims to have appeared before California’s Parole Board on thirteen

different occasions since 1983, the most recent of which occurred on October 3, 2006. 

McCottrell contends that the board has repeatedly denied him release based solely on his

commitment offense.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

Case 4:07-cv-01089-PJH Document 4 Filed 03/20/07 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 Habeas.osc

2

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." 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

B. Petitioner’s Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief, raising a due process claim with

essentially three sub-parts. He claims that the Parole Board’s repeated denial of his

release on parole violates his due process rights because: (1) it is based solely on his

commitment offenses; (2) that parole suitability hearings have been “sham” hearings; and

(3) that the state law applied by the Parole Board is void for unconsitutional vagueness. 

Liberally construed, the claim appears colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merits an

answer from respondents.

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 upon respondents. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

on petitioner.

2. Respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days of

the date 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 administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by

the petition.

3. If the petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

////

Case 4:07-cv-01089-PJH Document 4 Filed 03/20/07 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 Habeas.osc

3

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the

answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2007 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01089-PJH Document 4 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 3