Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01870/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01870-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES H. CARR,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1870 FCD PAN P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges an October 2003

decision by then California Governor Gray Davis reversing a decision of the California Board of

Prison Terms to grant petitioner a parole date. This matter is before the court on respondent’s

motion to dismiss.

Respondent contends that petitioner has no federally protected liberty interest in

parole under California law. To support that contention, respondent relies on an order of a

district judge of this court in Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 376 F.Supp.2d 975

(E.D.Cal. 2005). The Sass case is under submission in the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit following oral argument on March 16, 2006. Good cause appearing, respondent’s 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01870-MCE-JFM Document 16 Filed 07/26/06 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

motion will be denied without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate, not later than thirty days

after any decision by the court of appeals in Sass. 

By order filed May 11, 2006, the Federal Defender was appointed to represent

petitioner and the parties were directed to file status reports. The parties have timely filed status

reports. After review of those reports, and good cause appearing, petitioner will be granted a

period of thirty days from the date of this order to file a motion to stay these proceedings pending

exhaustion of state remedies as to additional claims for relief. Said motion shall be noticed for

hearing on this court’s regular law and motion calendar and briefed according to the provisions

of Local Rule 78-230. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s November 21, 2005 motion to dismiss is denied without

prejudice.

2. Petitioner is granted a period of thirty days from the date of this order to file a

motion to stay these proceedings pending exhaustion of state remedies as to additional claims for

relief. Said motion shall be noticed for hearing on this court’s regular law and motion calendar

and briefed according to the provisions of Local Rule 78-230. 

DATED: July 25, 2006.

12

carr1870.mtd

Case 2:05-cv-01870-MCE-JFM Document 16 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 2