Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04259/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04259-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL ALBERTO LOSNO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

S. W. ORNOSKI, Warden, 

Respondents. /

No. C 05-4259 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. It is directed to denial of parole. 

The initial review order listed three issues, that (1) his due process rights were denied when the

Board denied parole for the seventh time based on the circumstances of his crime; (2) the

hearing was arbitrary and the result preordained, a violation of due process; and (3) the Board’s

repeated use of the same formula to deny parole shows that it is not an unbiased decision-maker

basing its decision on the evidence before it, also a due process violation. Respondent’s motion

to dismiss on the grounds that issues two and three were not exhausted was granted and

petitioner was informed of his options. He has elected to dismiss issues two and three and

proceed with issue one. As a consequence: 

1. Issues two and three are DISMISSED.

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. 

Case 3:05-cv-04259-WHA Document 14 Filed 06/04/08 Page 1 of 2
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

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 days of his receipt of the answer.

3. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Papers intended to be

filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk rather than to the undersigned. Petitioner also

must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk

headed “Notice of Change of Address,” and comply with any orders of the court within the time

allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. 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: June 3 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.05\LOSNO259.OSC2.wpd 

Case 3:05-cv-04259-WHA Document 14 Filed 06/04/08 Page 2 of 2