Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00996/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00996-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARK JAMES TAYLOR, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ROSEMARY NDOH, Acting Warden,1

Respondent. 

Case No. 15-cv-00996-YGR (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO 

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 

Petitioner Mark James Taylor, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se action for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the decision of the Board of Parole 

Hearings (“Board”) to deny him parole at his July 26, 2012 parole suitability hearing. As grounds 

for federal habeas relief, Petitioner’s first two claims allege that he was denied due process when 

the Board (1) required him to admit to the commitment offense and (2) denied parole without 

some evidence that he continues to present a current threat to public safety. In his third claim, 

Petitioner alleges that the Board’s deferral of his next parole hearing for seven years under 

Marsy’s Law2 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. 

Before the Court is Respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant petition. Dkt. 8. 

Respondent moves to dismiss on the ground that jurisdiction is lacking over Petitioner’s due 

process claims and thus he has not stated a cognizable basis for federal habeas relief. In addition, 

Respondent argues that Court should deny without prejudice Petitioner’s Ex Post Facto claim 

 1

 Rosemary Ndoh, the current acting warden of the prison where Petitioner is incarcerated, 

has been substituted as Respondent pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

2

 In 2008, the voters approved Proposition 9, the “Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: 

Marsy’s Law,” which modified the availability and frequency of parole hearings. 2008 Cal. Legis. 

Serv. Prop. 9, amending in pertinent part, Cal. Penal Code § 3041.5(b)(3) (extending deferral 

periods) and (b)(4) and (d) (advance hearings). 

Case 4:15-cv-00996-YGR Document 11 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

because any relief should come from the class action, Gilman v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. CIVS-05-0830 LKK GGH, which has cross-appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

On February 22, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion resolving the cross-appeals in 

Gilman v. Brown, Ninth Case Nos. 14-15613, 14-15680. See Gilman v. Brown, Nos. 14-15613, 

14-15680, slip op. 1-30 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2016). 

Accordingly, the Court requires the parties to submit simultaneous briefs discussing only 

the effects of the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the cross-appeals in Gilman v. Brown, Ninth Case 

Nos. 14-15613, 14-15680. 

No later than March 7, 2016, Respondent and Petitioner must each submit a supplemental 

brief no longer than eight (8) pages discussing effects of the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the 

cross-appeals in Gilman v. Brown, Ninth Case Nos. 14-15613, 14-15680. The Clerk of the Court 

will mail to Petitioner a copy of the February 22, 2016 opinion in Gilman v. Brown, Ninth Case 

Nos. 14-15613, 14-15680. 

The Court will resolve Respondent’s pending motion to dismiss after it has received the 

aforementioned supplemental briefing from the parties. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: Monday, February 22, 2016 

______________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:15-cv-00996-YGR Document 11 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 2