Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05812/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05812-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOYD HALL, III,

Petitioner,

 v.

B. CURRY, Warden, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-5812 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 2)

On September 21, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the

Correctional Training Facility, Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted, in San Bernardino County Superior Court, of second degree

murder and assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to cause great bodily injury; he was

sentenced to a term of 15 years to life plus five years in state prison. In 2005, the California

Board of Prison Hearings (“BPH”), for the fourth time, denied petitioner parole. Petitioner

challenged this decision by habeas petitions filed in the San Bernardino County Superior

Court, the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California. All three habeas

petitions were denied. 

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

Case 3:06-cv-05812-MMC Document 3 Filed 01/05/07 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

1

The foregoing claims are set forth in a copy of petitioner’s state habeas petition attached to,

and specifically referenced in, the instant federal petition.

2

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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the

petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner claims: (1) the BPH’s decision violated his rights to due process and equal

protection by denying him the individualized considerations mandated by state and federal

law; (2) the BPH violated his rights to due process and equal protection by denying him

parole based on evidence “with some indicia of reliability,” a lower standard of proof than

constitutionally mandated; (3) the decision to deny him parole violated his liberty interest,

protected by due process, in release on parole; and (4) the BPH violated his constitutional

rights to due process, confrontation, double jeopardy and equal protection by basing the

denial of parole on his refusal to admit to a crime of which he was acquitted.1

 Liberally

construed, petitioner’s claims are cognizable. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

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

petition, along with all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the

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

on petitioner.

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 90 days of

the date this order is filed, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

Case 3:06-cv-05812-MMC Document 3 Filed 01/05/07 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

3

Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be

granted based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. 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 30 days of the date the answer is filed.

3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 90 days of the date this order

is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 30 days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent

shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of the date any

opposition is filed.

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. 

5. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

7. In light of petitioner’s payment of the filing fee, the application to proceed in

forma pauperis is DENIED as moot.

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2007 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05812-MMC Document 3 Filed 01/05/07 Page 3 of 3