Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00297/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00297-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMETRIUS D. HUFF,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-0297 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This is a habeas corpus case involving denial of parole. The petition was dismissed

with leave to amend because it was unclear which of two parole denials petitioner intended

to challenge, Petitioner has filed an amended petition in which he makes clear that it is

directed to a denial of parole on December 13, 2005. 

BACKGROUND

In 1994, a Riverside County jury convicted petitioner was convicted of second

degree murder. The December 13, 2005, denial of parole challenged here was his second. 

He claims to have exhausted these claims by way of state habeas petitions. 

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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

Case 4:08-cv-00297-PJH Document 7 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 3
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

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes

(quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which

appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon

v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his due process

rights were violated by the Board’s repeated denial of parole based on the circumstances of

the offense; and (2) there was not “some evidence” to support the denial. 

These claims are sufficient to require a response. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d

910, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (warning that repeated denial of parole based on unchanging

characteristics of offense might violate due process); McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895,

904 (9th Cir. 2002) (due process requires that at least “some evidence” support parole

denial). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the amended

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 on

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 all

Case 4:08-cv-00297-PJH Document 7 Filed 04/02/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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 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. 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 informed of any change of address and 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). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.08\HUFF0297.OSC2.wpd 

Case 4:08-cv-00297-PJH Document 7 Filed 04/02/10 Page 3 of 3