Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00511/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00511-0/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

DOUGLAS ROBERT COLLIER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

EDDIE YLST, Acting Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0511 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Docs # 3 & 4)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison

("SQSP") in San Quentin, California, 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") May 20, 2005 decision to deny him parole. He also seeks

appointment of counsel and leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of the State of California in

and for the County of Santa Clara of second degree murder and sentenced to a

indeterminate term of 15 years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner has been found not suitable for parole each time he has appeared

before the BPT. On January 4, 2006, the Supreme Court of California denied his

challenge to the BPT's decision of May 20, 2005.

Case 3:06-cv-00511-CRB Document 5 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 4
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

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 May 20, 2005

decision finding him not suitable for parole on the ground that the decision does

not comport with due process. Among other things, petitioner contends that the

decision is not supported by some evidence in the record having an indicia of

reliability and that it is instead based on the unchanging facts of his offense. 

Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims appear colorable under § 2254 and merit

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-tolife sentence implicated prisoner’s liberty interest in release on parole which

cannot be denied without adequate procedural due process protections).

C. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (doc # 4) is DENIED

without prejudice. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir.

1986) (unless an evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel

in habeas corpus proceedings is within the discretion of the district court). 

Petitioner clearly presented his claims for relief in the petition and an order to

Case 3:06-cv-00511-CRB Document 5 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 4
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

show cause is issuing. Accord Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir.

1984) (although petitioner had no background in law, denial of appointment of

counsel within discretion of district court where petitioner clearly presented

issues in petition and accompanying memorandum). The court will appoint

counsel on its own motion if a evidentiary hearing is later required. See

Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728 (appointment of counsel mandatory if evidentiary

hearing is required).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc # 3)

is GRANTED.

2. 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 petitioner. 

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

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. 

/

/

/

/

Case 3:06-cv-00511-CRB Document 5 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 4
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 4

4. 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 30 days of his

receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00511-CRB Document 5 Filed 06/02/06 Page 4 of 4