Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02318/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02318-0/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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS TYRONE THOMAS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A. P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2318 PJH (PR)

GRANT OF LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility at Soledad, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

 The petition attacks denial of parole, so venue is proper in this district, which is

where petitioner is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder in 1984. He received a

sentence of fifteen years to life in prison, plus two years. In 2003 the Board of Prison

Terms determined that he was suitable for parole and set a release date. The

governor, however, reversed the board’s decision, allegedly relying on pre-conviction

factors. Petitioner alleges that he has exhausted his claim by way of state habeas

petitions. 

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

Case 4:05-cv-02318-PJH Document 2 Filed 07/11/05 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

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

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that his due process

rights were violated by the governor’s decision, in that it relies upon factors which will

never change. This contention is sufficient to require a response. See Biggs v.

Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A continued reliance [after a first

denial of parole] on an unchanging factor . . . runs contrary to the rehabilitative

goals espoused by the prison system and could result in a due process violation.”). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. In view of petitioner’s trust account balance and income over the last six

months prior to filing the petition, leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc 1) is

DENIED. Petitioner shall pay the five-dollar filing fee within thirty days of the date of this

order. If he does not, this case will be dismissed. 

2. The clerk shall serve by regular 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. 

3. 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

Case 4:05-cv-02318-PJH Document 2 Filed 07/11/05 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

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.

4. 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.

5. 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 informed of any change of address and 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). See

Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in

habeas cases). 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 11, 2005.

 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.05\THOMAS318.OSC

Case 4:05-cv-02318-PJH Document 2 Filed 07/11/05 Page 3 of 3