Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05974/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05974-0/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

ANTHONY L. TOTTEN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SCOTT RAWERS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-05974 TEH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

On November 27, 2007, Petitioner, a California state prisoner, filed a pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California

Board of Parole Hearings’ (“BPH”) decision to deny him parole on August 2, 2006, while

he was housed at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. Petitioner has

paid the filing fee. This order directs Respondent to show cause why the petition should

not be granted. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of the

State of California in and for the County of Orange of attempted murder with the use of a

firearm and sentenced to a term of seven years-to-life in state prison on January 3, 1992. 

Petitioner has been found unsuitable for parole each time he has appeared before

the BPH. He specifically challenges the BPH’s decision after his fourth parole

consideration hearing finding him not suitable for parole on August 2, 2006. Petitioner’s

Case 3:07-cv-05974-TEH Document 3 Filed 03/27/08 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

claims have been exhausted before the California Supreme Court, which denied

Petitioner’s state habeas petition on September 25, 2007.

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 BPH’s decision finding him

not suitable for parole on the grounds that the BPH based their decision on immutable

factors in violation of due process. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claim appears

colorable under § 2254 and merits an answer from Respondent. See Biggs v. Terhune,

334 F.3d 910, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that initial refusal to set parole date for

prisoner with 15-to-life sentence implicated prisoner’s liberty interest in release on parole

which cannot be denied without adequate procedural due process protections).

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 Attorney

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

Case 3:07-cv-05974-TEH Document 3 Filed 03/27/08 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

Petitioner. 

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

(60) 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. 

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 (30) days of his

receipt of the answer. 

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. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 03/27/08 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05974-TEH Document 3 Filed 03/27/08 Page 3 of 3