Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03437/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03437-0/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

WILLIE C. HEARNE, C32689,

Petitioner,

 vs.

RON DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-3437 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

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

challenging the continued denial of parole from his indeterminate life sentence. 

BACKGROUND

In 1981, petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury in

San Francisco County Superior Court. The court sentenced him to 15 years to

life in state prison.

Pursuant to California law, prison officials calculated petitioner’s base

term date as July 3, 1996; his minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) as October

14, 1990; and his maximum eligible parole date as May 24, 1994. But petitioner

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

Board of Parole Hearings.

In 2014, petitioner began seeking habeas relief in the state courts claiming

that his continued confinement without parole is unlawful because his minimum

and maximum parole eligibility dates passed years ago. The state courts denied

petitioner relief, with the Supreme Court of California denying review of his 

state petition on October 1, 2014. 

Case 3:15-cv-03437-CRB Document 4 Filed 09/02/15 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

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 claims that the failure to release him on parole after his

minimum and maximum parole eligibility dates passed amounts to an excessive

term of imprisonment amounting to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of

the Eighth Amendment. Liberally construed, the claim appears arguably

cognizable under § 2254 and merits an answer from respondent. See Zichko v.

Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se

petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally). But see Roberts v. Hartley, 640

F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that after Swarthout v. Cooke, 131

S. Ct. 859 (2011), the “responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally

adequate procedures governing California’s parole system are properly applied

rests with California courts”) (quoting Cooke, 131 S. Ct. at 862). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall serve 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

Case 3:15-cv-03437-CRB Document 4 Filed 09/02/15 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

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. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Sept. 2, 2105 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.15\Hearne, W.15-3437.osc.wpd

Case 3:15-cv-03437-CRB Document 4 Filed 09/02/15 Page 3 of 3