Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07315/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07315-0/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS IVAN JAMES, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

CURRY, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-7315 MJJ (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges prison officials improperly

searched his cell and falsely claimed to have found inmate manufactured wine in his cell. 

The petition was dismissed with leave to amend because the allegations did not implicate the

fact or duration of his custody. Petitioner has filed an amended petition alleging that the

discipline he received as a result of defendants’ actions result in his loss of 91 days of good

time credits.

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 time credit claim does affect the legality or

duration of a prisoner's custody, the successful determination of which would result in

entitlement to an earlier release, and as such must be brought in habeas. See Butterfield v.

Case 4:06-cv-07315-CW Document 6 Filed 07/11/07 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

Bail, 120 F.3d 1023, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Petitioner claims he was deprived of his right to due process and his right to equal

protection in connection with the discipline he received for possessing inmate-manufactured

alcohol. Liberally construed, these claims are cognizable. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders:

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

petition, and all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney

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

petitioner.

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 90 days of

the date this order is filed, 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 based on petitioner’s claims described above. 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, within 90 days, 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 within

30 days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

petitioner a reply within 15 days of receipt of any opposition.

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. 

5. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's

Case 4:06-cv-07315-CW Document 6 Filed 07/11/07 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

orders in a timely fashion. 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).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

 MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07315-CW Document 6 Filed 07/11/07 Page 3 of 3