Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01764/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01764-0/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

Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Scheurich764oscparole.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK SCHEURICH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-1764 RMW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 2007 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings

(“Board”) in finding him unsuitable for parole. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis

is GRANTED. The court orders respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, on August 4, 1987, petitioner was sentenced to twenty-five

years to life in state prison after being convicted of conspiracy to commit first degree murder in

Santa Clara County Superior Court. Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in superior court, the

court of appeal, and the state supreme court challenging the denial of his parole. The courts

denied petitioner’s petitions on August 3, 2008, September 9, 2008, and March 25, 2009,

respectively. Petitioner thereafter filed the instant petition on April 22, 2009.

*E-FILED - 6/2/09*

Case 5:09-cv-01764-RMW Document 8 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 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 1

 The court combines petitioner’s claims 1, 3, and 4 into one claim.

Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Scheurich764oscparole.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 claims that (1) the Board is violating his

due process and equal protection rights in denying his eligibility for parole release and refusing

to set a term limit; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to find petitioner unsuitable for

parole.1 Liberally construed, petitioner’s allegations is sufficient to require a response. The

court orders respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 

CONCLUSION 

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

no. 1) 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 ninety 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. 

Case 5:09-cv-01764-RMW Document 8 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 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

Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Scheurich764oscparole.wpd 3

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 ninety 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 thirty days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the

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

6/1/09

Case 5:09-cv-01764-RMW Document 8 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 3