Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03943/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03943-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD PHILLIPS, C20212,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-3943 SK (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a 

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

execution of an indeterminate life sentence from Los Angeles County Superior Court. 

The petition is properly before the undersigned for initial review because petitioner 

has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, three 

counts of rape by force or violence, and three counts of oral copulation in concert with 

another. The jury also found true allegations that he personally used a firearm in the 

commission of a felony. On or about August 1, 1980, petitioner was sentenced to a life 

term, plus 15 years and eight months, with the possibility of parole.

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

the California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) or its predecessor. On December 31, 2015, 

the Los Angeles County Superior Court denied petitioner’s latest claims against BPH’s 

October 31, 2014 decision to deny him parole. The California Court of Appeal and the 

Supreme Court of California summary denied him state habeas relief on March 7, 2016 

and June 8, 2016, respectively.

Case 3:16-cv-03943-CRB Document 5 Filed 08/16/16 Page 1 of 4
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from BPH’s October 31, 2014 decision 

to deny him parole on the grounds that the decision did not comport with due process or 

equal protection because (1) BHP refused to consider a recent psychological evaluation 

prepared at the request of petitioner’s attorney, and (2) BPH’s findings that petitioner 

lacked remorse, credibility and insight are not supported by the evidence in the record. 

Petitioner’s claim that BPH’s findings are not supported by the evidence in the record must 

be DISMISSED because it is well-established that in the context of parole, a California 

prisoner receives adequate process when he is allowed an opportunity to be heard and is 

provided with a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 

562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). Whether BPH’s decision was supported by some evidence is 

irrelevant in federal habeas. See id. at 221 (“it is no federal concern . . . whether 

California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the 

Constitution demands) was correctly applied”). But liberally construed, petitioner’s claim 

that BPH refused to consider a recent psychological evaluation arguably implicates his due 

process right to be heard and merits an answer from respondent. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 

F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (pro se habeas petitions must be liberally construed).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

Case 3:16-cv-03943-CRB Document 5 Filed 08/16/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1. The clerk shall serve (1) a copy of this order, (2) the petition and all 

attachments thereto (ECF No. 1), and (3) a notice of assignment of prisoner case to a 

United States magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or 

declination to consent form (requesting that respondent consent or decline to consent 

within 28 days of receipt of service), 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. 

2. 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 

granted. 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. 

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.

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. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner must serve and file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition not more than 28 days after the motion is served 

and filed, and respondent must serve and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14 

days after the opposition is served and filed.

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2016 _________________________

SALLIE KIM

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-03943-CRB Document 5 Filed 08/16/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03943-SK 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on August 16, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Harold Phillips ID: C-20212

San Quentin State Prison 3-N-94 up

San Quentin, CA 94974 

Dated: August 16, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Melinda K. Lozenski, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable SALLIE KIM

Case 3:16-cv-03943-CRB Document 5 Filed 08/16/16 Page 4 of 4