Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01087/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01087-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN R. MCCARTHY,

Petitioner,

v.

W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-01087-JST (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison and proceeding pro se,

has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.

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

Petitioner alleges that he is in custody serving a twenty-five year and eight-month sentence 

following a 2005 conviction. In this action, he challenges the execution of his sentence. 

Specifically, he alleges that he was validated as a prison gang associate of the EME prison gang 

upon his arrival to state prison in 2005. As a result, he was placed in the Security Housing Unit 

Case 3:15-cv-01087-JST Document 12 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

("SHU"). In 2010, he underwent gang inactivity review proceedings and was found to be an 

active gang member, resulting in his continued retention in the SHU. California Penal Code 

§ 2933.6, as amended effective January 25, 2010, precludes good time credits while in the SHU. 

Petitioner contends that the application of the amended version of § 2933.6 to him resulted in his 

minimum release date being extended by approximately one year and three months. Petitioner 

claims he did not receive due process at his gang inactivity review proceedings in that: (1) the 

source item used to classify him as an active gang associate did not meet the "some evidence" 

standard; and (2) prison officials did not investigate the source item used to classify him as an 

active gang associate. Liberally construed, petitioner's claim are cognizable under § 2254 and 

merit an answer from respondent.

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition, with all attachments, to 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 petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety-one (91)

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 granted 

based on the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 

petitioner a copy of all portions of the record of the gang validation proceedings 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 twenty-eight (28) days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within ninety-one (91) days, 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. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the 

Court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition is filed.

Case 3:15-cv-01087-JST Document 12 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

4. 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 informed of any change of address and 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). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 

1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

5. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the Court sua sponte substitutes 

W.L. Montgomery, the current warden of Calipatria State Prison, where petitioner is currently 

incarcerated, as respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01087-JST Document 12 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 3