Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04758/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04758-0/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)

---

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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.04\Williams04758_osc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

J. BROWN, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-04758 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California State Prison - San

Quentin, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254, challenging the California Board of Prison Terms’ (“BPT”) August 25, 2003

decision to deny him parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior

Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Mateo of first degree

murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187), robbery (Cal. Penal Code § 211), and use of a

firearm (Cal. Penal Code § 12022.5). Petitioner was sentenced to 25 years to life in

Case 5:04-cv-04758-JW Document 8 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.04\Williams04758_osc.wpd 2

state prison with a minimum eligible parole date of February 15, 2004. (Pet. at 1.) 

 On August 25, 2003, petitioner appeared before the BPT for an initial 

parole hearing. The BPT denied parole for a period of three years. Petitioner

challenged the BPT’s decision in the state courts, and on October 13, 2004, the

Supreme Court of California denied review. 

DISCUSSION

A. 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). 

 It 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.” Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from the BPT’s August 25, 2003

decision finding him not suitable for parole on two grounds: 1) the BPT is violating

due process by failing to properly administer Penal Code § 3041, and 2) the BPT’s

mischaracterization of his crime in their decision to deny parole violates due

process. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims appear cognizable under § 2254

and merit an answer from respondent. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. 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

Case 5:04-cv-04758-JW Document 8 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.04\Williams04758_osc.wpd 3

Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this

order on petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

ninety (90) 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 issued. 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 forty-five (45) days of

his receipt of the answer. 

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. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall

file with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of nonopposition 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.

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 also keep the court and all parties informed of any change 

of address. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:04-cv-04758-JW Document 8 Filed 09/06/07 Page 3 of 3