Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05182/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05182-0/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

Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Sizemore182osc

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM SIZEMORE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A.P. KANE, Warden, et al, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-5182 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the Board of Prison Terms’ (“Board”)

failure to grant him parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court orders

Respondent to show cause as to why the petition should not be granted. 

STATEMENT

In 1984 a Stanislaus Superior Court jury convicted Petitioner of first degree

murder with the use of a firearm (Cal. Penal Code §§ 187, 12022) and vehicle theft (Cal.

Veh. Code § 10851). Petitioner challenges the Board of Prison Terms’ failure to grant

him parole at his parole suitability hearing. Petitioner filed three state habeas petitions in

the state superior court, state appellate court and state supreme court, all of which were

**Original filed 8/31/06**

Case 5:05-cv-05182-JF Document 3 Filed 08/31/06 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

Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Sizemore182osc

denied as of November 2, 2005. Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition on

December 14, 2005.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for 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. 

B. Petitioner’s Claim

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner alleges that the Board deprived him

of his federally protected liberty interest and violated his Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendment constitutional right to due process by repeatedly denying him parole based

on the unchanging facts of the offense after disregarding the evidence of his rehabilitation

crime-free behavior in prison. See Petition at 6. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s

allegation is sufficient to require a response. The Court orders Respondent to show cause

why the instant petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition 

and all attachments thereto upon the Respondent and the Respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this

order on the Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty

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

Case 5:05-cv-05182-JF Document 3 Filed 08/31/06 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

Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Sizemore182osc

all portions of the state parole 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 thirty 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 shall file

with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition

within thirty days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and

serve on Petitioner a reply within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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 keep the Court and all

parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of

Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

8/31/06 /S/

Case 5:05-cv-05182-JF Document 3 Filed 08/31/06 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

Order to Show Cause 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.05\Sizemore182osc

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

William Sizemore

C-89029

CTF - Soledad

P.O. Box 689

Soledad, CA 93960-0689

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Case 5:05-cv-05182-JF Document 3 Filed 08/31/06 Page 4 of 4