Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01675/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01675-0/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

ANTHONY TOTTEN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A. KANE, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1675 TEH (PR)

No. C 05-1965 TEH (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING 

RESPONDENT TO FILE

FURTHER ANSWER TO

THE PETITION

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training

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

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Prison Terms'

("BPT") two most recent decisions to deny him parole. On September 27, 2005,

the Court ordered Respondent to show cause as to why the petitions should not be

granted. In the order, Respondent was directed to respond to the claims raised in

the petition, including “[a]mong other things, petitioner claims that the decisions

were arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence in the record.” 

The petition also raises additional claims. The petition is now submitted and

before the Court for consideration on the merits. 

However, in response to the petition, Respondent states that because the

Court did not specifically direct them to respond to Petitioner’s claims of

systemic bias against granting parole and an equal protection claim, they did not

answer these claims and that “it appears that this Court did not find [these claims]

Case 3:05-cv-01675-TEH Document 16 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 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 2

cognizable[.]” While the Court did not specifically list these claims identified by

Respondent in the order, the claims were found cognizable. As a result,

Respondent’s answer to the Court’s order to show cause is incomplete. 

Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within 30 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 as to those claims not addressed in Respondent’s answer. 

Petitioner may file a traverse within 30 days of his receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 07/03/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01675-TEH Document 16 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 2