Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01504/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01504-0/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

VINCENT RUSSO,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT AYERS, JR., Warden

Respondent. /

No. C 07-01504 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Vincent Russo is serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole in

California state prison. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he has stated valid claims

under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The government is ORDERED TO ANSWER the petition. 

STATEMENT

Petitioner was convicted in California Superior Court of (1) kidnaping to commit

robbery and (2) attempted murder. Petitioner robbed a liquor store in December 1978. After

demanding money from a store employee, Dale Eaton, petitioner noticed a light blinking by the

register and concluded that Eaton had triggered the silent alarm. Petitioner fled in a panic and

took Eaton with him. Petitioner later shot Eaton five times, although Eaton survived. On April

3, 1985, petitioner was sentenced to a term of life in prison with the possibility of parole. In

April 2005, the Board of Prison Terms found petitioner unsuitable for parole. It was his eighth

parole hearing. 

Case 3:07-cv-01504-WHA Document 2 Filed 03/22/07 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

2

On August 25, 2005, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in California

Superior Court. Therein, petitioner challenged the April 2005 decision denying him parole. 

The Superior Court denied his petition on October 17, 2005. On November 15, 2005, he

subsequently challenged the decision denying him parole in a petition to the California Court of

Appeal. That petition was denied on January 20, 2006. A petition for writ of habeas corpus

was filed before the California Supreme Court on February 10, 2006. That petition was denied

on October 11, 2006. The instant federal habeas corpus petition was field on March 15, 2007.

ANALYSIS

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

A district court may entertain a habeas petition filed by someone in custody pursuant to

a state-court judgment but only on grounds that he or she is held in violation of the Constitution,

laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). A court may “issue an order directing

the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,” unless the petition is

baseless. 28 U.S.C. 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only if the petition’s allegations

are vague, conclusory, incredible or frivolous. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491

(9th Cir. 1990).

2. PETITIONER’S LEGAL CLAIMS.

Petitioner argues that the Board of Prison Terms’ refusal to set a parole date for him

violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. Petitioner contends that there is no

evidence to support the Board’s finding that he was unsuitable for parole. He also contends that

he served a disproportionate punishment under the sentencing scheme set forth by the California

legislature. Petitioner states valid claims. The state therefore must answer.

CONCLUSION

The CLERK IMMEDIATELY SHALL SERVE respondent’s counsel with a copy of the

petition, all attachments to it, and this order. RESPONDENT SHALL FILE AND SERVE UPON

PETITIONER, BY MAY 23, 2007, AN ANSWER conforming to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Respondent shall, by that date, also

Case 3:07-cv-01504-WHA Document 2 Filed 03/22/07 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

3

serve all other materials required by Habeas Local Rule 2254-6(b). The record must be

indexed. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall file a TRAVERSE WITH THE

COURT AND SERVE IT UPON RESPONDENT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE

ANSWER. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01504-WHA Document 2 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3