Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01527/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01527-0/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

CLIFTON BODE,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT K. WONG, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-1527 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Clifton Bode, an inmate at the San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the court for

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Bode states in his petition that he is serving a sentence of 7 years to life on a 1978

conviction in Colusa County Superior Court for first degree murder. His petition does not

challenge that conviction but instead challenges a May 4, 2009 decision by the Board of

Parole Hearings ("BPH") to find him not suitable for parole. Bode apparently filed

unsuccessful habeas petitions in the state courts, including the California Supreme Court,

before filing this action. 

This action concerns the 2009 BPH decision; Bode's other action, Bode v. Wong, No.

C 09-5848 SI, concerns the 2008 BPH decision. 

Case 3:10-cv-01527-SI Document 3 Filed 04/22/10 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).

Bode alleges in his petition that the BPH's decision violated his federal right to due

process because it was not supported by sufficient evidence. Liberally construed, the petition

states a cognizable claim for a violation of petitioner's rights under the Due Process Clause of

the U.S. Constitution. The state law claims are dismissed. 

 The court is aware that a decision in particular case pending in the Ninth Circuit may

provide guidance for the consideration of the petition. In Hayward v. Marshall, 9th Cir. Case

No. 06-55392, the panel's published decision, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008), was vacated when

rehearing en banc was granted on May 16, 2008. The en banc oral argument took place on June

24, 2008, and the parties have finished their original briefing, as well as two supplemental

rounds of briefing. There is no set date for a decision in the Hayward, however. Respondent

should not seek a stay of this action pending a decision in Hayward. See Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d

1116, 1120-22 (9th Cir. 2000) (it is an abuse of discretion for a district court to stay a habeas

petition indefinitely pending resolution of a different case involving parallel issues on the basis

of judicial economy). As an alternative to a stay, the court will be receptive to a reasonable

request for an extension of time if a decision in Hayward is not issued by 30 days before the date

respondent's brief is due. 

Case 3:10-cv-01527-SI Document 3 Filed 04/22/10 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

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition's federal due process claim 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 August 6, 2010, 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.

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 September 10, 2010. Petitioner's

traverse may not exceed 20 pages in length.

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He must keep the court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion.

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

6. Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a completed in forma pauperis

application no later than May 28, 2010. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this

action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 22, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01527-SI Document 3 Filed 04/22/10 Page 3 of 3