Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01089/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01089-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER MCCOTTRELL,

Petitioner, No. C 07-1089 PJH

v.

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

RE: CLARIFICATION OF 

PETITIONER’S CLAIMS

AND RE: EXHAUSTION

ROBERT L. AYERS, Warden, 

Respondent.

_______________________________/

On February 22, 2007, petitioner Walter McCottrell (“McCottrell”), a state prisoner,

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 20,

2007, this court issued an order to show cause requiring respondent to respond. In that

OSC, the court noted that McCottrell raised a due process claim with essentially three subparts. He claims that the Parole Board’s repeated denial of his release on parole violates

his due process rights because: (1) it is based solely on his commitment offenses; (2) that

parole suitability hearings have been “sham” hearings; and (3) that the state law applied by

the Parole Board is void for unconstitutional vagueness. Respondent filed its opposition on

May 25, 2007. McCottrell failed to file a reply by the June 24, 2007 deadline.

Although McCottrell framed his federal habeas petition in a manner that suggests

that he is challenging numerous parole denials, respondent’s opposition focuses only on

the Parole Board’s 2004 denial. Aside from McCottrell’s July 21, 2006 petition for review to

the California Supreme Court, neither party included the actual habeas petitions filed with

Case 4:07-cv-01089-PJH Document 6 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District 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 California Superior Court or Court of Appeal, but submitted only the state courts’

postcard denials. Given the state of the record, this court is unable to ascertain which

claim(s) McCottrell presented to the state courts for purposes of determining whether he

exhausted the claims raised in the instant petition. Additionally, since McCottrell failed to

reply to respondent’s opposition, the court is unable to ascertain whether McCottrell agrees

with respondent’s construction of his claims, which limits them to the Parole Board’s 2004

denial.

Given these issues, further clarification and briefing is required before the court may

address McCottrell’s petition on the merits. McCottrell is ORDERED to file and serve no

later than August 24, 2007, a supplemental brief clarifying the scope of his claims, and

specifically stating whether he is challenging only the Parole Board’s 2004 denial or other

denials as well. If McCottrell is broadly challenging the Parole Board’s denials in years

other than 2004, then McCottrell is ORDERED to demonstrate in his supplemental brief

and any supporting documents that he exhausted such claims before the state courts. To

the extent that McCottrell, in supplemental briefing, clarifies that he intended to challenge

the Parole Board’s denials in years other than 2004, respondent shall file and serve no

later than September 24, 2007, a supplemental opposition, which addresses both the

exhaustion and the merits of such claims. McCottrell may file and serve a reply, if any, no

later than October 9, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2007 

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01089-PJH Document 6 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 2