Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01203/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01203-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL ESCARCEGA,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1203 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Raul Escarcega, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this pro

se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition and

amendment thereto are before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Escarcega reports in his petition that he was convicted on an unstated date in the Los

Angeles County Superior Court of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery and was sentenced to

7 years to life in prison. His petition does not challenge his conviction but instead challenges

a decision by the Board of Parole Hearings ("BPH") at a December 15, 2005 hearing that found

him not suitable for parole. 

Escarcega's petition indicates that he filed unsuccessful habeas petitions in state court

before filing this action.

Case 3:08-cv-01203-SI Document 5 Filed 04/01/08 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

DISCUSSION

This court may entertain a petition for 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 in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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).

Escarcega alleges that the BPH's decision at the December 15, 2005 hearing that he was

unsuitable for parole violated his right to due process because it was not supported by some

reliable evidence. Liberally construed, the allegations state a cognizable claim for a due process

violation. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); Sass v. California Board of

Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2006) (adopting some evidence standard for

disciplinary hearings outlined in Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55 (1985)); Biggs

v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2003).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The due process claim is cognizable and warrants a response. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State

of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before June 15, 2008, 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 issued. Respondent must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the parole hearing record that have been previously transcribed

and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

Case 3:08-cv-01203-SI Document 5 Filed 04/01/08 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

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before July 25, 2008.

5. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket # 2.) 

6. Two cases were opened for petitioner because his in forma pauperis application

and filing fee were mailed in one envelope and his petition was mailed in another envelope and

the envelopes reached the courthouse on different days. By separate order the court will dismiss

the higher-numbered case (C 08-1287). Petitioner must make all further filings in this case, i.e.,

Case No. C 08-1203 SI, and must write this case number on the first page of every document he

files.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2008 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01203-SI Document 5 Filed 04/01/08 Page 3 of 3