Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05747/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05747-0/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL M. TEAHAN,

Petitioner,

v.

C. DUCART,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-05747-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se incarcerated at Pelican 

Bay State Prison, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that prison officials are 

withholding his time credits illegally.1 He has paid the filing fee. Because the petition states 

cognizable claims for relief, a response from Respondent is warranted. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of 42 years in state prison for a gang-related 

crime committed when he was 17 years old in April 1994. At that time, state law allowed 

Petitioner to earn “good-time credits” against his sentence on a day-for-day basis, and such credits 

could only be withheld for disciplinary reasons. In December 2011, prison officials validated him 

as a gang associate and, pursuant to an amendment to the California Penal Code, prohibited him 

 

1

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 4.) 

Case 5:15-cv-05747-EJD Document 4 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

from continuing to earn good time credits. His release date was thereby postponed from April 

2016 to October 2020. 

DISCUSSION

I. 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. 

II. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims that prison officials violated his right to due process by failing to provide 

him with sufficient procedural safeguards when they validated him as a gang member. He also 

claims that withholding good time credits based upon his gang validation pursuant to a change in 

the California Penal Code violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. When liberally construed, these

claims state cognizable grounds for federal habeas relief.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, 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. 

2. Respondent shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form in 

accordance with the deadline provided on the form. 

Case 5:15-cv-05747-EJD Document 4 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

3. Respondent shall also file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety-one (91)

days of the date this Order is issued, an answer showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should 

not be granted. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all records 

of Petitioner’s gang validation proceedings and subsequent withholding of time credits that are 

relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond 

to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse (a reply) with the Court and serving it on 

Respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of the date the answer is filed.

4. Respondent may, within ninety-one (91) days of the date this Order is issued, file a 

motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer. If Respondent files such a motion, 

Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of nonopposition within twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent shall file 

with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition 

is filed.

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice of Change of 

Address.” He 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05747-EJD Document 4 Filed 01/25/16 Page 3 of 3