Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01787/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01787-0/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.jf\hc.08\Bradshaw787osc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BRADSHAW,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1787 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court orders

Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 

STATEMENT

On December 4, 1987, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of fifteen years-to-life in

state prison after his conviction for second degree murder in the Orange Superior Court. 

Petitioner challenges the Board of Parole Hearings’ (“Board”) decision denying him

parole after his February 8, 2006 parole suitability hearing. Petitioner filed habeas

petitions in the state superior court, state appellate court, and the state supreme court, all

of which were denied as of March 14, 2007. Petitioner filed the instant federal petition

on August 7, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Central District of

Case 5:08-cv-01787-JF Document 4 Filed 05/13/08 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.jf\hc.08\Bradshaw787osc 2

California. The petition was transferred to this Court on April 24, 2008 and filed in a new

habeas action, case no. C 08-2025 JF (PR). This Court issued an order closing the C 08-

2025 JF (PR) matter and directing the Clerk to transfer the documents to the instant

habeas action. 

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: (1) the denial of his federal

liberty interest in parole is contrary to and an unreasonable application of the “some

evidence” standard set forth in Superintendent v. Hill 472 U.S. 445 (1985), in violation of

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); and (2) the denial of his federal liberty interest in parole is an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented, pursuant to §

2254(d)(2), because “clear and convincing” evidence disproves any threat to the public if

Petitioner was granted parole. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims are cognizable

under § 2254. The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted. 

CONCLUSION 

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

and all attachments thereto (docket no. 3) 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. 

Case 5:08-cv-01787-JF Document 4 Filed 05/13/08 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.jf\hc.08\Bradshaw787osc 3

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty

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. 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 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: _______________ 

JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

5/8/08

Case 5:08-cv-01787-JF Document 4 Filed 05/13/08 Page 3 of 3