Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02476/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02476-0/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)

---

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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\07-02476 Adler02476_osc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON ADLER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-02476 JW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility

in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole’s (“BOP”) October 12,

2005 decision to deny him parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of the State of California in

and for Santa Clara County of first degree murder, and on or about June 29, 1971,

was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole in state prison. (Pet. 1.) 

 Petitioner has been found not suitable for parole each time he has appeared 

before the BOP. According to the petition, the October 12, 2005 decision was

Case 5:07-cv-02476-JW Document 5 Filed 07/09/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\07-02476 Adler02476_osc.wpd 2

petitioner’s sixteenth denial of parole. (Pet. 6.) On April 25, 2007, the Supreme

Court of California denied his challenge to the BOP’s latest decision. Petitioner

filed the instant federal habeas petition on May 8, 2007. 

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. Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from the BOP’s October 12,

2005 decision finding him not suitable for parole on the following grounds: 1) due

process was violated by the BOP’s continued use of unchanging factors in denying

petitioner parole; 2) the BOP denied petitioner’s legal right to have a primary term

fixed in accordance with California Supreme Court decisions; and 3) the decision

finding petitioner unsuitable for parole was “arbitrary and capricious” as the record

is void of evidence to support the finding that petitioner poses an unreasonable threat

to public safety. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims appear cognizable under §

2254 and merit an answer from respondent. 

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 and respondent’s attorney, the

Case 5:07-cv-02476-JW Document 5 Filed 07/09/07 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

Order to Show Cause

N:\Pro - Se\7.9.2007\07-02476 Adler02476_osc.wpd 3

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 issued. 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 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 nonopposition 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. 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. 

DATED: July 9, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

Case 5:07-cv-02476-JW Document 5 Filed 07/09/07 Page 3 of 3