Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00923/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00923-0/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

1

 It appears that petitioner was also convicted of robbery and kidnaping charges, and

sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with respect to each offense, with such sentences

to be served concurrently with petitioner’s sentence of twenty-five years to life

imprisonment. (See id. Ex. B.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX JACKSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent /

No. C 08-0923 MMC

ORDER OF SERVICE; DIRECTING

RESPONDENT TO FILE RESPONSE TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

Before the Court is Alex Jackson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed February

13, 2008, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled guilty to first-degree felony murder, (see Pet. at 3:15-16), and, on

July 15, 1983, was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, (see id.

Ex. G at 5:1-2). On March 4, 1986, petitioner was re-sentenced to twenty-five years to life

imprisonment, with an additional two-year sentence enhancement for using a handgun.1

(See id. Ex. C.) Petitioner became eligible for parole on December 19, 1998. (See id. Ex.

A at 1:6-11.) Petitioner was considered for parole by the State of California Board of Parole

Case 3:08-cv-00923-MMC Document 2 Filed 02/27/08 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

Hearings (“BPH”) in 1997, 2002, and 2005; on each occasion, the BPH denied petitioner’s

application for parole. (See id. at 6:2-3, 6-10.) Petitioner subsequently filed, with the

California Superior Court, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for review of the BPH’s

2005 decision to deny parole. On April 13, 2007, the California Superior Court denied the

petition. (See id. Ex. I.) Petitioner thereafter filed a petition in the California Court of

Appeals, which denied the petition on June 28, 2007. (See id. Ex. J.) On September 12,

2007, the California Supreme Court denied review. (See id. Ex. K.) 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

A district 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.” See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a). 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.” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

“vague or conclusory,” “palpably incredible,” or “patently frivolous or false.” See Hendricks

v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63,

75-76 (1977)).

B. Petitioner’s Claims

In his petition, petitioner argues the BPH’s 2005 decision to deny parole violated

petitioner’s protected liberty interest in parole, and, consequently, petitioner’s due process

rights, for the reasons that: (1) the BPH’s decision was not supported by the evidence in

the record, (see Petition at 11:19-12:23); (2) the BPH’s findings were not supported by the

evidence in the record, (see id. at 13:1-24:24); (3) the BPH relied on offense facts and

other unchangeable factors in denying parole, but failed to articulate a nexus between such

factors and the state’s standard for parole suitability, (see id. at 25:1-33:6); and (4) the BPH

relied on offense facts, an immutable factor, thereby interminably precluding the possibility

Case 3:08-cv-00923-MMC Document 2 Filed 02/27/08 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

of parole and effectively converting petitioner’s sentence to life without the possibility of

parole, (see id. at 33:8-38:11). 

The Court cannot say, from the face of the pleadings, that the claims alleged by

petitioner are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. 

Consequently, respondent will be directed to file a response to the petition. Specifically,

respondent will be directed to either file a motion to dismiss, if such a motion is warranted,

or, alternatively, to file an answer, attaching thereto a copy of all portions of the state record

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition, as well as a supporting

memorandum of points and authorities.

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the

Petition, and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities upon respondent and

respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General for the State of California.

2. Respondent shall file, within 30 days of the date of this order, either a motion to

dismiss, noticed for hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2, or an answer and supporting

memorandum of points and authorities.

3. In the event respondent files an answer, petitioner may, within 30 days thereafter,

file a traverse.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00923-MMC Document 2 Filed 02/27/08 Page 3 of 3