Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03623/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03623-2/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

JOSE MAGANA,

Petitioner,

 v.

A.P. KANE,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-3623 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On September 9, 2005, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the California

Correctional Training Facility Soledad, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a decision made in 2005 by the California

Board of Prison Terms (“Board”), wherein petitioner was found unsuitable for parole. 

Because the petition included unexhausted claims, specifically, a challenge to a decision

made in 2005 rather than to the decision made in 2004, the petition was dismissed with leave

to amend to set forth exhausted claims challenging the 2004 decision. On March 9, 2006,

petitioner filed an amended petition in which he challenges only the 2004 decision. 

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 60 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 cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer and

Case 3:05-cv-03623-MMC Document 9 Filed 05/09/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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 the filing of the answer.

2. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 60 days of the date this order

is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 the filing of the motion, and respondent shall

file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of the filing of any

opposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2006 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03623-MMC Document 9 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 2