Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01281/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01281-0/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

RAGHBIR SINGH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1281 CRB (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

Hearings' ("BPH") August 29, 2006 decision to deny him parole.

BACKGROUND

In 1987, petitioner was convicted of second degree murder in the Superior

Court of the State of California in and for the County of Fresno and sentenced to

an indeterminate term of 15 years to life with the possibility of parole. 

Petitioner was denied parole until August 5, 2004, at which time the BPH

finally found him suitable for parole and granted him a parole date. Shortly

thereafter, the governor reversed the BPH's decision, however.

Case 3:08-cv-01281-CRB Document 6 Filed 07/21/08 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

 Petitioner received a subsequent parole suitability hearing on August 31,

2005; but the BPH changed course and found him not suitable for parole and

denied another hearing for one year. On August 29, 2006, petitioner received a

subsequent hearing and again was denied parole, but this time for three years. He

challenges the August 29, 2006 decision.

On January 23, 2008, the Supreme Court of California denied petitioner's

challenge to the BPH's August 29, 2006 decision.

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 BPH's August 29,

2006 decision finding him not suitable for parole, and denying him a subsequent

hearing for three years, on the ground that the decision does not comport with

due process. Among other things, petitioner contends that the decision is not

supported by some evidence in the record having an indicia of reliability. 

Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims appear colorable under § 2254 and merit

an answer from respondent. See Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d

1123, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that refusal to set parole date for prisoner

with 15-to-life sentence implicated prisoner’s liberty interest in release on parole

Case 3:08-cv-01281-CRB Document 6 Filed 07/21/08 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

which cannot be denied without adequate procedural due process protections).

Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2003) (same). 

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

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

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. 

3. 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. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2008 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.08\Singh, R1.osc.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-01281-CRB Document 6 Filed 07/21/08 Page 3 of 3