Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01979/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01979-1/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

1 The California case of In re Powell, 45 Cal.3d 894 (1988), relied upon extensively by

petitioner, does not adopt “some evidence” as the standard of decision for California parole

boards, but rather adopts it as the standard of review for California appellate courts. Id. at 903-

04. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1979 PJH (PR)

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE SUMMARILY

DENIED

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Respondent’s motion to

dismiss as mixed was granted. Petitioner was informed of his options, and has elected to

proceed with the only exhausted issue, his claim that the use of a “some evidence”

standard by the Board and by the reviewing courts violated due process. The claim that

use of that standard by the appellate courts violated due process is clearly without merit. 

See Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1129 (9th Cir. 2006) (adopting

"some evidence" standard for appellate review of due process claims arising from parole

eligibility hearings). 

It theoretically possible that the Board of Prison Hearings used a “some evidence”

standard to decide whether to deny parole, and possible that doing so would violate due

process, but there is nothing in the petition or attachments that shows the Board did use

that standard.1

 In the absence of evidence that the Board used a “some evidence”

Case 4:08-cv-01979-PJH Document 11 Filed 04/14/10 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

standard of decision, the claim is without merit and should be summarily denied. Petitioner

therefore shall show cause within thirty days of the date this order is entered why the

petition should not be summarily denied; to do so, he must show that the Board in his

hearing used a “some evidence” standard of decision. If he does not respond, or is unable

to show that the Board in his hearing used the “some evidence” standard as a standard of

decision, the petition will be summarily denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.08\HERNANDEZ,B1979.osc2.wpd

Case 4:08-cv-01979-PJH Document 11 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 2