Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00171/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00171-0/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

1

 Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as unnecessary. (Docket

No. 6.) Petitioner’s ex parte motion of notice of court fee is construed as a motion for an

extension of time within which to pay the filing fee. So construed, the motion is GRANTED. 

(Docket No. 9.)

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.15\Stockton171osc.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JOHN STOCKTON, JR., 

Petitioner,

 v.

RON E. BARNES, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-0171 RMW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docket Nos. 6, 9)

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.1 The court orders respondent to show cause

why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner was issued a Rules Violation Report after engaging

in a hunger strike at Pelican Bay State Prison. Petitioner has filed unsuccessful state habeas

petitions in each level of the state courts.

///

///

Case 5:15-cv-00171-RMW Document 10 Filed 09/22/15 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.15\Stockton171osc.wpd 2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court 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. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that: (1) petitioner’s due process

rights were violated at the rules violation hearing (Claims 1-3), and (2) the California Code of

Regulation, title 15 § 3005(a) and Operation Procedure No. 228 are vague and overbroad (Claim

5). Liberally construed, the court orders respondent to show cause why the petition should not

be granted. 

Petitioner’s claims that the threat of issuing the Rules Violation Report violated his right

to free speech and was an act of retaliation are not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding. 

“Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition

for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev.

Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or to

particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.” Hill v. McDonough, 547

U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). “An inmate’s

challenge to the circumstances of his confinement, however, may be brought under § 1983.” Id.

Here, petitioner’s claims of free speech and retaliation are not allegations that petitioner is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Thus, they are

not cognizable in this habeas proceeding and are dismissed.

Finally, petitioner’s claim that the state court erred in denying his petition is dismissed

for failing to state a claim for relief. Errors in the state post-conviction review process are not

Case 5:15-cv-00171-RMW Document 10 Filed 09/22/15 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.15\Stockton171osc.wpd 3

addressable through federal habeas corpus proceedings. See Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 939

(9th Cir. 1998) (state judge’s refusal to appoint counsel in second post-conviction relief

proceeding might be a violation of Arizona law, but does not constitute ground for a federal

habeas claim because there is no constitutional right to an attorney in a state post-conviction

proceeding); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989) (dismissing claim that state

court’s delay of over a year in deciding petitioner’s state post-conviction relief petition was in

violation of his right to due process; “a petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction

review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings”). Such errors do not

generally represent an attack on the prisoner’s detention and therefore are not proper grounds for

habeas relief. 

CONCLUSION 

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

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

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

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

the date this order is filed, 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 granted. 

Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the

underlying state criminal record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

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 thirty days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases within sixty days of the date this order is filed. If respondent files such a motion,

petitioner shall file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of nonopposition within twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file

with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is

Case 5:15-cv-00171-RMW Document 10 Filed 09/22/15 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\RMW\HC.15\Stockton171osc.wpd 4

filed.

4. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner is reminded that

all communications with the court must be served on respondent by mailing a true copy of the

document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” He must

comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

9/22/2015

Case 5:15-cv-00171-RMW Document 10 Filed 09/22/15 Page 4 of 4