Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04260/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04260-0/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

RON MOSLEY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

S. OROSKI, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-4260 TEH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a State of California prisoner currently incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the decision of the Governor of the State of

California to revoke a parole date granted him by the California Board of Prison

Terms ("BPT"). 

Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the decision of the Governor in the

state courts. On June 1, 2005, the California Court of Appeal denied his petition

for a writ of habeas corpus and, on September 7, 2005, the Supreme Court of

California denied review. 

The instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 followed. 

Case 3:05-cv-04260-TEH Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 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 decision of the

Governor to revoke a parole date granted him by BPT. Among other things,

petitioner claims that the Governor’s decision was not based on evidence bearing

some indicia of reliability and that it violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. Liberally

construed, petitioner’s claims appear colorable under § 2254 and merit an answer

from respondent. See McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 902-03 (9th Cir.

2002) (decision to rescind previously-granted parole release date implicated

prisoner’s liberty interest in release on parole which cannot be denied without

adequate procedural due process protections); see also Biggs v. Terhune, 334

F.3d 910, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2003) (refusal to set parole date for prisoner

implicated prisoner’s liberty interest in release on parole).

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

Case 3:05-cv-04260-TEH Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 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

this order on petitioner. 

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: 02/27/06 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04260-TEH Document 4 Filed 02/27/06 Page 3 of 3