Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00063/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00063-0/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 to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Patterson063oscparole.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID E. PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

C. NOLL, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-0063 RMW (PR)

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 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) in

2009 finding him unsuitable for parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The court orders

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

BACKGROUND

On January 7, 1983, petitioner was sentenced to a term of 25 years-to-life in state prison

after his conviction for first degree murder in Los Angeles County Superior Court. At his parole

suitability hearing in 2009, the Board found petitioner to be unsuitable for parole. Petitioner

challenged this decision unsuccessfully in habeas petitions filed in all three levels of the

California courts. Petitioner thereafter filed the instant petition. 

*E-FILED - 3/25/10*

Case 5:10-cv-00063-RMW Document 6 Filed 03/25/10 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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Patterson063oscparole.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 he has a liberty interest in

parole and should be released because there is insufficient evidence that he is currently a danger

to society. Petitioner further claims that the Board violated his right to due process by relying on

the immutable fact of his commitment offense and ignoring his efforts at rehabilitation. 

Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims are cognizable on federal habeas review. 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 

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 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. 

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. 

Case 5:10-cv-00063-RMW Document 6 Filed 03/25/10 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 to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.10\Patterson063oscparole.wpd 3

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 the 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

3/25/10

Case 5:10-cv-00063-RMW Document 6 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 3