Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01083/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01083-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\Johnson083osc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES VANCE JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1083 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court initially denied Petitioner’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis and Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court orders

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

STATEMENT

On April 9, 1985, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of twenty years-to-life in state

prison after his conviction for second degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon in

Kern Superior Court. Petitioner challenges the Board of Prison Terms’ (“Board”)

decision denying him parole after his April 26, 2005 parole suitability hearing. 

**E-filed 7/31/07**

Case 5:07-cv-01083-JF Document 5 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 4
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

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\Johnson083osc 2

Petitioner sought habeas relief in the state superior court, appellate court, and supreme

court, all of which were denied as of January 3, 2007. Petitioner filed the instant federal

petition on February 22, 2007. 

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). 

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. 

B. Petitioner’s Claim

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner alleges that he was deprived of

parole, a federal liberty interest protected by federal law, without some evidence

supporting the determination that he poses an unreasonable threat to public safety. 

Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claim is cognizable under § 2254. The Court orders

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

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition 

and all attachments thereto upon the Respondent and the Respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this

order on the 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 portions of the state parole record that have been transcribed previously and that are

Case 5:07-cv-01083-JF Document 5 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 4
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

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\Johnson083osc 3

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. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. 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 and all

parties 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: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

7/30/07

Case 5:07-cv-01083-JF Document 5 Filed 07/31/07 Page 3 of 4
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

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.07\Johnson083osc 4

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

Charles Vance Johnson

D-05007/ G-238

Correctional Training Facility

P.O. Box 689

Soledad, CA 93960-0689

Case 5:07-cv-01083-JF Document 5 Filed 07/31/07 Page 4 of 4