Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01225/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01225-9/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLTON HILLMON,

Petitioner,

v.

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1225 LJO SMS HC

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER

ADDRESSING CLAIM INVOLVING THE

GOVERNOR’S 2003 FINDING OF

UNSUITABILITY FOR PAROLE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented to Richard Pfeiffer, Esq.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 8, 2005, in the

United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. By order of

September 13, 2005, the petition was transferred to this court, and filed on September 28, 2005. 

(Court Doc. 1.) On April 4, 2006, Petitioner filed an amended petition. (Court Doc. 6.) 

Respondent filed an answer to the amended petition on April 4, 2007. Petitioner did not

file a traverse. 

In her answer, Respondent acknowledges that the amended petition challenges both the

California Board of Parole Hearings finding him unsuitable for parole following a parole

consideration hearing on March 3, 2004, and Governor Davis’ reversal of the 2002 Board of

Case 1:05-cv-01225-LJO -SMS Document 28 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 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

 The Court notes that claims involving separate and distinct instances, such as here, should generally be 1

raised in two separate petitions; however, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the claims will not be separated at this

juncture and will be heard simultaneously in the instant petition. 

2

Parole Hearings finding of suitability for parole ; however, Respondent did not address the merits 1

of Petitioner’s claim challenging the Governor’s reversal. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases and this Court’s order of April 13, 2006, within thirty (30) days

from the date of service of this order, Respondent is directed to file a supplemental answer

addressing the merits of Petitioner’s claim challenging the Governor’s 2003 reversal of the

Board’s finding of suitability for parole. Within twenty (20) days from the date Respondent files

her supplemental answer, Petitioner may file a supplemental traverse. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01225-LJO -SMS Document 28 Filed 02/19/08 Page 2 of 2