Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00142/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00142-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SINH VINH TRAN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden, et al., 

Respondent(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-0142 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the decision of the Governor of the

State of California to revoke a parole date granted him by the California Board of

Parole Hearings ("BPH"). 

BACKGROUND

On December 20, 1995, petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder in

the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Orange and

was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 15 years to life. He was found

not suitable for parole until April 2008.

On April 2, 2008, the BPH found petitioner suitable for parole and set a

parole date; however, Governor Schwarzenegger reversed the BPH's parole

suitability determination and revoked the parole date.

Case 3:10-cv-00142-CRB Document 4 Filed 05/05/10 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 2

Petitioner has unsuccessfully challenged the governor's decision in the

state courts. On November 19, 2009, the Supreme Court of California denied

review of his final petition for state habeas relief. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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). 

It 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." Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from the decision of the

governor to revoke a parole date granted him by the BPH. Among other things,

petitioner claims that the governor’s decision is not supported by the evidence. 

Liberally construed, petitioner's claims appear colorable under § 2254 and merit

an answer from respondent. See Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL

1664977, at **10-11 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010) (en banc) (finding cognizable on

federal habeas review claims that California parole denials were made without

some evidence of future dangerousness).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

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

petition and all attachments thereto on respondent, the Attorney General of the

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

Case 3:10-cv-00142-CRB Document 4 Filed 05/05/10 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 3

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

60 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 issued. 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 petition. 

3. 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 30 days of his

receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 4, 2010 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.10\Tran, S1.osc.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-00142-CRB Document 4 Filed 05/05/10 Page 3 of 3