Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04143/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04143-2/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)

---

ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

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

ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DALTON RUSH,

Petitioner,

 v.

 ANTHONY P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-04143 CRB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

State inmate, Robert Dalton Rush (“Petitioner”), filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was found guilty of second degree murder after a

jury trial in San Bernardino County. Anthony P. Kane, the warden at the California

Correctional Facility in Soledad (“Respondent”), filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that

Petitioner had not exhausted two of his claims in state court. The two claims that Respondent

contends were not exhausted are 1) that the Board relied on unconstitutionally vague

language in its regulations in denying Petitioner parole, and 2) the Board has a policy of

denying indeterminate prisoners parole because the “very make-up” of the Board “precludes

its impartiality.” (Resp’t Motion at 4). In response, Petitioner filed an amended petition for a

writ of habeas corpus which eliminates the first claim and incorporates his second claim into

a “no parole” policy claim that has been exhausted in state court. (Opp. at 2). Respondent

believes the petition still includes unexhausted claims and must be dismissed.

Case 3:05-cv-04143-CRB Document 19 Filed 03/16/07 Page 1 of 3
ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

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

The motion to dismiss based on the first claim, that the Board relied on

unconstitutionally vague language, is now moot. Petitioner removed that section in its

entirety from his amended memorandum of points and authorities. 

In Petitioner’s no parole policy claim in the petition for review by the California

Supreme Court, Petitioner asserted; “the executive branch is failing to follow the statutory

mandate that parole dates ‘shall normally’ be set . . . The denial of a parole date at the 2003

hearing is part of an unlawful practice of the Board to deny parole to virtually all life inmates

. . . and frustrates the legislative mandate in Penal Code section 3041 that parole ‘shall

normally’ be granted.” In his original petition for habeas, Petitioner’s central argument was

that the make-up of the parole board precluded its impartiality. That argument was not

included in any claim presented to the California Supreme Court. 

In Petitioner’s amended memorandum of points and authorities, Petitioner changes his

argument: he claims that it is the Governor’s policy to deny parole to inmates. The majority

of his argument addresses the governor’s no parole policy and how he has implemented this

policy on the Board. Petitioner, however, also includes language to the effect that the

Board’s political/employment history reveals a bias in favor of law enforcement and that the

Board’s composition is not diverse. To the extent Petitioner still claims that he is entitled to

habeas relief because of the composition of the Board, such claim is dismissed as

unexhausted; the no parole policy claim, however, is still in the petition.

In reviewing Respondent’s motion to dismiss, the Court has reviewed and scrutinized

Petitioner’s 27-page amended petition and 80-page amended memorandum. To assist the

Court with the evaluation of his petition, and to assist the Respondent in answering it,

Petitioner is hereby ORDERED to prepare a summary, not to exceed five pages in length,

which shall set forth: (1) each discrete basis for his entitlement to habeas relief, and (2) a

concise, one-to-two-paragraph explanation of the legal foundation for each discrete claim. 

Each claim petitioner is making shall be separately numbered. Petitioner need not make

arguments in support of the claims; he need only identify them. This summary brief does

not, of course, supplant the petition or the memorandum previously filed by the Petitioner;

Case 3:05-cv-04143-CRB Document 19 Filed 03/16/07 Page 2 of 3
ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\4143\orderredismissalandsummary 3 .wpd

instead, it will assist Respondent in answering the claims and the Court in deciding this

habeas petition. The summary shall be filed within 30 days of the date of this Order.

Respondent shall file, not later than forty-five (45) days after the filing of Petitioner’s

summary brief, 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. 

Respondent shall file with the answer a copy of all portions of the state trial and appellate

record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the

issues presented by the petition. If the petitioner wishes to respond, he shall do so by filing a

traverse within thirty (30) days of his receipt of the answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2007

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04143-CRB Document 19 Filed 03/16/07 Page 3 of 3