Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05412/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05412-0/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

Order to Show Cause 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Harmon412oscparole.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

L. C. HARMON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

C. NOLL, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-5412 RMW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner challenges the Board

of Prison Terms’ (“Board”) decision denying him parole at his September 12, 2007 parole

suitability hearing. The court orders respondent to show cause as to why the petition should not

be granted. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years-to-life in state prison after his guilty plea to

second degree murder in Los Angeles Superior Court. Petitioner challenges the Board’s decision

denying him parole. Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the superior court and court of

appeal, and a petition for review in the state supreme court. All were denied. The underlying

petition was filed on November 17, 2009.

*E-FILED - 2/9/10*

Case 5:09-cv-05412-RMW Document 5 Filed 02/09/10 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

Order to Show Cause 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Harmon412oscparole.wpd 2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for 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. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that the Board’s 2007 decision

denying parole in violation of petitioner’s federally protected right to due process guaranteed by

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Liberally construed, petitioner’s allegation is sufficient

to require a response.

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition 

and all attachments thereto upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney

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

petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty 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 granted. 

Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state

parole 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 within thirty days of his receipt of the answer.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

Case 5:09-cv-05412-RMW Document 5 Filed 02/09/10 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

Order to Show Cause 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Harmon412oscparole.wpd 3

answer, 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 thirty days of receipt of the

motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen

days of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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. Petitioner must keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

2/8/10

Case 5:09-cv-05412-RMW Document 5 Filed 02/09/10 Page 3 of 3