Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02572/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02572-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRESTON WILLIAM BRAXTON, JR., 

Petitioner,

 vs.

A.P. KANE, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2572 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket no. 3) 

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility at Soledad ("CTF"), has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Venue is proper

because Petitioner challenges the execution of his sentence and he is incarcerated in

Monterey county, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d),

Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a). This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition

should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

In the present petition Petitioner alleges that state prison officials have computed

the time credits to which he is entitled improperly, resulting in the miscalculation of his

release date. Specifically, Petitioner maintains that he is entitled to be released on May

25, 2006, while prison officials say that he is not eligible for release until October 11,

2006. Petitioner alleges that he pursued his administrative appeals to the third level of

Case 3:05-cv-02572-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/12/06 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 2

review on this matter and sought state habeas corpus relief. The California Supreme

Court summarily denied his petition on June 8, 2005.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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. 

II. Legal Claims

Improper computation of a state prisoner's time credits states a claim for the denial

due process, see Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1355-58 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc),

cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1020 (1986), which may be remedied by way of a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus, see Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.

denied, 498 U.S. 1126 (1991); accord Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1096 n.14

(9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). 

As it does not appear from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to

relief Respondent shall show cause why the petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (Docket no. 3.)

2. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition, and

all attachments thereto, on Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General

of the State of California. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60)

Case 3:05-cv-02572-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/12/06 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 3

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. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of

all portions of the state trial 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 (30) days of his receipt of the answer.

4. 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. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the

Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within

thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and

serve on Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court 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: Jan. 12, 2006 

 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02572-JSW Document 5 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 3