Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05423/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05423-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT BRUMETT,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY KANE, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 04-05423 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

SECOND AMENDED PETITION

 Petitioner Scott Brumett, who is in the custody of the California Department of

Corrections, filed a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County of second degree

murder, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, driving with a blood alcohol level in

excess of 0.08% and causing injury to the victim, and driving when privilege suspended for

prior convictions of driving under the influence. (See Petition at 14-15.) Venue is proper

because Petitioner is currently incarcerated in Soledad, which is located in Monterey County. 

See Local Rule 2254-3.

The 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 grounds 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 petition for writ of habeas corpus before the Second Appellate District of the

California Court of Appeals was denied on September 9, 2004. The California Supreme Court

denied review on December 1, 2004. This is Petitioner’s first federal habeas petition. This

Court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the unexhausted claims and Petitioner filed a

second amended petition on October 4, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-05423-JSW Document 34 Filed 11/01/06 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

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. Summary dismissal is

appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably

incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.

1990). 

 Petitioner does not challenge the validity of his underlying conviction or the resulting

sentence. Rather, Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief on the grounds that the Board of

Prison Terms improperly concluded that Petitioner was unsuitable for parole in violation of the 

Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States

Constitution and in violation of the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment in

violation of the 8th Amendment. Liberally construed, the petition appears potentially colorable

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merits an answer from Respondents.

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within 60 days from

the date 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 issued. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on

Petitioner a copy of all portions of the administrative record that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented by the petition; 

(2) 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. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-05423-JSW Document 34 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 2