Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03203/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03203-0/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

DAOUDA HILL,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, 

Respondent. /

No. C 06-3203 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Daouda Hill, 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. The petition was filed

several months ago in the Eastern District of California, but was recently transferred to this

district. Hill's 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

Hill reports in his petition that he was convicted in 1993 in Madera County Superior

Court of attempted murder. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole in

seven years. His petition does not challenge his conviction but instead challenges a decision by

the Board of Prison Terms ("BPT") at a November 30, 2004 hearing that found him not suitable

for parole. It appears that state court remedies were exhausted for the claim in the petition

before he filed this action.

 

Case 3:06-cv-03203-SI Document 2 Filed 05/26/06 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

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).

Hill alleges that the BPT's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence, in violation

of his right to due process. Liberally construed, the petition states a cognizable claim for a due

process violation. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); McQuillion v. Duncan,

306 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The due process claim in the petition warrants a response from respondent. 

 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 July 28, 2006, 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 3:06-cv-03203-SI Document 2 Filed 05/26/06 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

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 1, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 25, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03203-SI Document 2 Filed 05/26/06 Page 3 of 3