Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02089/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-02089-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Grounds
Respondent
William S. Oswald
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

OAKLAND DIVISION

WILLIAM S. OSWALD,

Petitioner,

 vs.

R. GROUNDS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-02089 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.

 The petition attacks denial of parole, so venue is proper in this district, which is

where petitioner is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder in Los Angeles County Superior

Court. He was sentenced to prison for seventeen years to life. This petition is directed to a

denial of parole on June 5, 2008. He claims to have exhausted these claims by way of

state habeas petitions. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

Case 4:10-cv-02089-PJH Document 3 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes

(quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which

appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon

v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his rights were

violated by the Board’s repeated denial of parole based on the facts of his offense and in

the face of extensive evidence of rehabilitation; and (2) there was not “some evidence” to

support the denial.

These claims are sufficient to require a response. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d

910, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (warning that repeated denial of parole based on unchanging

characteristics of offense might violate due process); McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895,

904 (9th Cir. 2002) (due process requires that at least “some evidence” support parole

denial). 

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. 

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

the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

Case 4:10-cv-02089-PJH Document 3 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Governing Section 2254 Cases, 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

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. 

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 thirty days of his receipt of the answer.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an

answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file with the court

and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty days of

receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply

within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner

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). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2010. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.10\OSWALD2089.OSC.wpd 

Case 4:10-cv-02089-PJH Document 3 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 3