Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03626/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03626-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL QUINTON BONNER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3626 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Doc # 3)

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison

(“PBSP”), has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings' ("BPH") most recent

decision to deny him parole. He also seeks leave to procced in forma pauperis

(doc # 3) which, good cause shown, is granted.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of the State of California in

and for the County of Los Angeles of first degree murder and sentenced to a

indeterminate term of 25 years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner has been found not suitable for parole each time he has appeared

before the BPH (formerly known as the Board of Prison Terms (“BPT”)). On

March 30, 2004, the Supreme Court of California denied his challenge to the

BPH's latest decision.

Case 3:05-cv-03626-CRB Document 4 Filed 01/20/06 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

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 in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

It 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." Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from the BPH's latest decision

finding him not suitable for parole on the ground that the decision does not

comport with due process. Among other things, petitioner contends that the

decision is not supported by some evidence in the record and that it is instead

based on an unlawful “no parole policy.” Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims

appear colorable under § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent. See Biggs

v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that initial refusal to

set parole date for prisoner with 15-to-life sentence implicated prisoner’s liberty

interest in release on parole which cannot be denied without adequate procedural

due process protections).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

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

petition and all attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of

this order on petitioner. 

Case 3:05-cv-03626-CRB Document 4 Filed 01/20/06 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

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within

60 days of the issuance of this order, 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 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. 

3. 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 his

receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 19, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03626-CRB Document 4 Filed 01/20/06 Page 3 of 3