Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04391/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04391-0/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

RICHARD RAEL, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

S. W. ORNOSKI, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4391 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison in San Quentin, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the decision of the Governor of California, who

on April 29, 2005 reversed the earlier determination of the Board of Prison Terms,

finding Petitioner suitable for parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. This order directs

Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted of murder in Alameda County

Superior Court in 1982 and was sentenced to fifteen years-to-life. In this habeas action,

Petitioner does not challenge his conviction, but instead challenges the execution of his

sentence. Petitioner contends that the denial of parole by the Governor of California

during parole suitability proceedings in 2005 violated his rights to due process and under

the Ex Post Facto Clause. He alleges that he has exhausted state judicial remedies as to

Case 3:05-cv-04391-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/27/06 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

all of the claims raised in his federal petition.

DISCUSSION

I 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. 

II Legal Claims

Petitioner alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by the Governor’s 

parole denial in 2005. Liberally construed, the allegations are sufficient to warrant a

response from Respondent. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); see,

e.g., Morales. v. California Dep't of Corrections, 16 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 1994),

rev'd on other grounds, 514 U.S. 499 (1995). 

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 petition, and

all attachments thereto, on Respondent Warden 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 (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

Case 3:05-cv-04391-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/27/06 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

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 (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 shall file with the Court

and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30)

days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice

of Change of Address.” He 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)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2006 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04391-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 3