Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06265/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06265-0/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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Portune06265_osc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT FRANK PORTUNE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SUSAN ORNOSKI, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-06265 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Central District of

California. The petition was subsequently transferred to this court. Petitioner 

challenges the Board of Prison Terms’s (“BPT”) finding, in 2005, that he was

unsuitable for parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

BACKGROUND

In 1977, petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the State

of California in and for the County of San Bernardino, of first degree murder, first

degree robbery and the use of a firearm. He was sentenced to a term of seven years

to life in state prison. In 2005, the Board of Prison Terms (“BPT”) found him to be

unsuitable for parole for a thirteenth time. He challenged the BPT’s decision by way

Case 5:06-cv-06265-JW Document 9 Filed 09/06/07 Page 1 of 4
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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Portune06265_osc.wpd 2

of habeas corpus petitions filed in all three levels of the California courts, which

petitions were denied. 

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); 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. Federal

courts have a duty to construe pro se petitions for a writ of habeas corpus liberally. 

Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001).

B. Claims

Petitioner claims (1) that the BPT’s denial of parole violated his Fourteenth

Amendment right to due process because the decision was not supported by any

evidence having indicia of reliability; (2) that the BPT violated his First Amendment

right to the free exercise of religion because the denial of parole was based on his

failure to attend Narcotics Anonymous, a program that violates his religious beliefs;

(3) that the BPT’s practice of denying parole in nearly every case violates his right

to due process; and (4) that he was convicted of a crime without due process. 

Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims are cognizable. Accordingly, respondent is

directed to SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk of the court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order

Case 5:06-cv-06265-JW Document 9 Filed 09/06/07 Page 2 of 4
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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Portune06265_osc.wpd 3

and the petition and all attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's

attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk shall also serve a

copy of this order on the petitioner at his most current address.

2. Respondent shall file with this court and serve upon petitioner, no later

than 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. 

If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent no later than forty-five (45)

days of the date the answer is filed. Should petitioner fail to do so, the petition will

be deemed submitted and ready for decision forty-five (45) days after the date the

answer is filed. 

3. Respondent may, within ninety (60) days of the issuance of this order,

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 to the motion no

later than forty-five (45) days after the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall

file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply no later than fifteen (15) days after

any opposition is filed.

4. 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 with the

clerk of the court headed “NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS,” and comply

with any orders of the court within the time allowed or ask for an extension of that

time. 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). See Martinez v.

Case 5:06-cv-06265-JW Document 9 Filed 09/06/07 Page 3 of 4
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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Portune06265_osc.wpd 4

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court, whether

by way of formal legal motions or informal letters, must be served on respondent by

mailing a true copy of the document to respondent's counsel.

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:06-cv-06265-JW Document 9 Filed 09/06/07 Page 4 of 4