Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05830/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05830-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO SOSA,

Petitioner, 

 v.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-5830 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION 

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The petition was dismissed with leave to amend, and petitioner filed a timely amended

petition. 

STATEMENT

Petitioner pleaded guilty to second degree murder in the Superior Court for Los Angeles

County. He was sentenced to prison for fifteen years to life. He alleges that he has exhausted

these parole claims by way of state habeas petitions. 

ANALYSIS

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

Case 3:07-cv-05830-WHA Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 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

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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient

are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d

1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

The initial petition was dismissed with leave to amend because it was not clear which

parole denial he is attacking. His amended petition clarifies that he is challenging the parole

hearing of December 5, 2005 (Amend. Pet. 1). 

The initial petition was also dismissed with leave to amend because it was not clear what

constitutional errors he was claiming occurred when his parole was denied. In his amended

petition, petitioner adequately clarifies that he is claiming: (1) that his right to due process was

violated because there was insufficient evidence of his unsuitability for parole in light of his

“exemplary” prison record; and (2) the denial of parole violated the Ex Post Facto Clause

because it effectively sentenced him to a term of life in prison without parole (id. at 1-2, 7-8). 

These claims are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the First Amended Petition to 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. 

Case 3:07-cv-05830-WHA Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 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

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety 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 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 amended

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 the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within sixty days, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds

in lieu of an 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 the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a

reply within fifteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

4. 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 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). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772

(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.07\SOSA5830.OSC.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-05830-WHA Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 3 of 3