Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01084/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01084-5/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

 Effective July 1, 2005, California’s Board of Prison Terms was abolished and replaced with 1

the Board of Parole Hearings. Cal. Penal Code § 5075(a) (West 2006) (“As of July 1, 2005, any

reference to the Board of Prison Terms . . . refers to the Board of Parole Hearings.”).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KASH REGISTER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1084 DFL DAD P

vs.

STEVE MOORE, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas petition challenging

the decisions of the California Board of Parole Hearings on May 9, 2002, and May 22, 2003, 1

denying petitioner a parole date. On February 24, 2006, respondents’ motion to dismiss the

petition was denied without prejudice, and respondents were ordered to file a new response to the

petition not later than thirty days after a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in the

appeal filed in Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 376 F. Supp. 2d 975 (E.D. Cal. 2005).

On August 31, 2006, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court’s holding in

Sass was based on a misreading of In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal. 4th 1061 (2005). Sass v. California

Case 2:05-cv-01084-ALA Document 21 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Board of Prison Terms, F.3d , No. 05-16455, 2006 WL 2506393, at *3 (9th Cir. Aug. 31,

2006). The Ninth Circuit concluded that “Dannenberg does not explicitly or implicitly hold that

there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole.” Id. Accordingly, “California

inmates continue to have a liberty interest in parole after In re Dannenberg.” Id. at *1. Under

clearly established Supreme Court authority, “‘California’s parole scheme gives rise to a

cognizable liberty interest in release on parole.’” Id. at *3 (quoting McQuillion v. Duncan, 306

F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir. 2002)). The liberty interest exists even for prisoners who have not yet

been granted a parole date. Id. (citing Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 915 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ new response to petitioner’s habeas petition shall be filed and

served on or before October 2, 2006. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer

to the petition shall be accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the issues

presented in the habeas petition. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

2. If the new response to petitioner’s habeas petition is an answer, petitioner’s

reply, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days after the answer is served; and

3. If the new response to petitioner’s habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty

days after the motion is served, and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed and served within

fifteen days after petitioner’s opposition is served.

DATED: September 5, 2006.

DAD:13

regi1084.resp

Case 2:05-cv-01084-ALA Document 21 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2