Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01117/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01117-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT BLAIR, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, 

Respondents. 

No. 2:15-cv-1117 AC P 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Habeas 

Rules) are appropriately applied to proceedings undertaken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas 

Rule 1(b). Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules requires the court to summarily dismiss a habeas petition 

“[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 

to relief in the district court.” “[A] petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without 

leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave 

granted.” Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 

 “Federal prisoners are required to exhaust their federal administrative remedies prior to 

bringing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court.” Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 

570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curium) (citations omitted); Weinstein v. United States Parole 

Case 2:15-cv-01117-TLN-AC Document 5 Filed 01/11/16 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

Comm’n, 902 F.2d 1451, 1454 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Judicial review of a decision of the Parole 

Commission is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only after administrative remedies have been 

exhausted.”) (citing Ruviwat v. Smith, 701 F.2d 844, 845 (9th Cir. 1983)). However, 

“[e]xhaustion is a judicially created prerequisite to filing for habeas relief in parole cases.” 

Fassler v. Pendleton, 110 F. App’x 749, 751 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Martinez, 804 F.2d at 571; 

Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Reno v. 

Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 54-55 (1995)). “Therefore, ‘the district court must determine whether to 

excuse the faulty exhaustion and reach the merits, or require the petitioner to exhaust his 

administrative remedies before proceeding in court.’” Id. (quoting Brown, 895 F.2d at 535). 

 The petition indicates that petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies in this 

case. ECF No. 1 at 2, 7. Therefore, petitioner will be required to show cause why his failure to 

exhaust should be excused. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of service of this order, petitioner must 

show cause why his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies should be excused. Failure to 

respond to this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss the petition. 

DATED: January 11, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01117-TLN-AC Document 5 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 2