Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03373/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03373-0/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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD M. SINGLER,

Petitioner,

v.

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 06-3373 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Ronald M. Singler, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court reviewed Singler's petition for

writ of habeas corpus, found it lacking and ordered that an amended petition be filed. His

amended petition is before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Singler was convicted in Placer County Superior Court of second degree murder and, in

1983, was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. His amended petition does not challenge his

conviction but instead challenges a September 27, 2005 decision by Governor Schwarzenegger

that reversed the May 18, 2005 decision of the Board of Prison Terms ("BPT") that found him

suitable for parole. Singler alleges that he filed unsuccessful state habeas petitions before filing

this action.

Case 3:06-cv-03373-SI Document 6 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 4
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

DISCUSSION

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). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

Singler asserts three claims in his amended petition. First, he claims that Governor

Schwarzenegger's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence. Liberally construed, the

allegation states a cognizable claim for a due process violation. See Board of Pardons v. Allen,

482 U.S. 369 (1987); Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1128-29 (9th

Cir. 2006). 

Second, Singler claims that the Governor's review of the BPT's parole suitability decision

violated his right to be free from ex post facto laws. He appears to urge that his rights under the

Ex Post Facto Clause were violated by the change in the law that occurred when the voters

approved Proposition 89, which added section 8(b) to Article V of the California Constitution

and gave the governor the right to review BPT decisions and when California Penal Code §

3041.2 gave the Governor that same power. His claim has no merit as the law was not an

unconstitutional ex post facto law. See Johnson v. Gomez, 92 F.2d 964 (9th Cir. 1996), cert.

denied, 520 U.S. 1242 (1997). The second claim is dismissed. 

Third, Singler claims that the Governor's use of the "some evidence" standard instead of

a preponderance of the evidence standard violated his right to due process. This claim will be

dismissed. First, the Governor's decision does not state that it is based on a some evidence

standard and there is no evidence to suggest that he employed such a standard. If any evidence

standard could be deduced from the Governor's decision, it would be a preponderance of the

Case 3:06-cv-03373-SI Document 6 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 4
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

evidence standard, as indicated by his statement that he "find[s]" that the gravity of the murder

committed by Mr. Singler presently outweighs the positive factors supporting his parole."

Amended Petition, Exh. D (Governor's decision), p. 2. The some evidence standard is

considerably more deferential than the preponderance of the evidence standard and is the

standard used for judicial review of a parole decision. See Sass, 461 F.3d at 1128-29 (adopting

some evidence standard for disciplinary hearings outlined in Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.

445, 454-55 (1985)). To the extent Singler claims that the courts (as opposed to the Governor)

are wrongly using the some evidence standard, the claim is precluded because Sass has

determined that it is the right standard for federal habeas review and the California Supreme

Court has determined it is the right standard for state habeas review of a parole decision.

Moreover, Singler would have no habeas claim based solely on the state courts' use of an

erroneous legal standard in a habeas action because errors in the state post-conviction review

process are not addressable through federal habeas corpus proceedings. See Ortiz v. Stewart,

149 F.3d 923, 939 (9th Cir. 1998); Gerlaugh v. Stewart, 129 F.3d 1027, 1045 (9th Cir. 1997);

Villafuerte v. Stewart, 111 F.3d 616, 632 n.7 (9th Cir. 1997); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26,

26 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1012 (1989). Such errors do not generally represent an

attack on the prisoner's detention and therefore are not proper grounds for habeas relief. See id.

 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The due process claim based on the sufficiency of the evidence warrants a

response from respondent. The claims for an ex post facto violation and for the use of the

improper standard for review of the evidence are dismissed. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the amended petition

and all attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of

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

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before January 19, 2007,

an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

Case 3:06-cv-03373-SI Document 6 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the parole hearing record that have been previously transcribed

and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the amended petition.

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before February 23, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 20, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03373-SI Document 6 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 4