Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01276/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01276-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James D. Hartley
Respondent
Omar Shaheed
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OMAR SHAHEED, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

JAMES D. HARTLEY, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:09-cv—01276-LJO-SKO-HC

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

(Doc. 12)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

FOR A STAY PENDING ISSUANCE OF

THE MANDATE IN HAYWARD V.

MARSHALL (Doc. 12)

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO

FILE A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION

WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. The matter has been referred

to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and

Local Rules 302 and 303. The Court directed Respondent to file a

response to the petition on November 10, 2009. Pending before

the Court are Respondent’s motions, filed on January 8, 2010, for

a more definite statement and for a stay of the proceedings

pending the issuance of the mandate in Hayward v. Marshall, 603

F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner filed a response on

February 26, 2010. 

1

Case 1:09-cv-01276-LJO -JMD Document 15 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Motion for More Definite Statement

Respondent moves for a more definite statement because

Petitioner has failed to include any relevant facts to support

four “vague” (mot. 2:11) grounds for relief; Respondent asserts

that he cannot provide a meaningful answer.

In the petition, Petitioner alleges that on January 17,

1983, he was convicted of second degree murder and attempted

murder with great bodily injury and use of a firearm; he was

sentenced to twenty-eight (28) years to life. (Pet. 1.) He

challenges the decision of the California Board of Parole

Hearings (BPH) made on July 1, 2008, denying Petitioner parole

for the third time. (Pet. 2.) Petitioner alleges that the

denial was based on the commitment offense and its being

especially heinous, as well as Petitioner’s criminal history. 

(Pet. 2-3.) Petitioner argues that factors concerning the

offense and Petitioner’s criminal history were inapplicable,

false and/or unsupported by any evidence, and irrelevant to

Petitioner’s current parole risk. (Pet. 2-3.) Further, the

historical facts relied upon to deny parole were immutable, and a

psychological evaluation was invalid. (Pet. 3, 4.) Petitioner

argues that he has met the requirements for suitability for

parole. (Pet. 4.) Petitioner argues that denial of parole on

the specified grounds was arbitrary and a denial of due process

of law guaranteed to Petitioner under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

(Pet. 3.) 

Attached to the petition are orders issued by state courts

concerning Petitioner’s claim as Petitioner exhausted his state

court remedies. (Pet. 8-16.) An order from the Superior Court

2

Case 1:09-cv-01276-LJO -JMD Document 15 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 5
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

of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles dated

December 10, 2008, details the circumstances of the commitment

offenses. Petitioner shot one man in the head and killed him,

and in the same transaction Petitioner shot another in the back

and leg, paralyzing him. (Id. 9-10.) The BPH denied parole

based on an unreasonable risk of danger to society and a threat

to public safety based on Petitioner’s commitment offense and a

psychological evaluation that reflected that Petitioner had an

antisocial personality disorder, ranked in the high range for

risk of future violence, and was either minimizing or lying about

his role in the crime and thus lacked understanding and remorse. 

(Id. 10-12.) 

When stating his “grounds” (meeting the suitability

requirements, invalid psychological evaluation, parole plans, and

the need for good cause for a parole decision), Petitioner

referred to supporting exhibits “where state remedies were

exhausted” and to a memorandum of points and authorities. (Pet.

4-5.) There does not appear to be a separate memorandum attached

to the petition, but the state trial court’s order on

Petitioner’s habeas petition does contain a discussion of the

state law pertinent to use of the commitment offense as a basis

for inferring a risk to public safety and denying parole,

including evaluating the motive for the crime and considering its

heinous nature and results. (Pet. 10-11.) It also discusses the

authorities pertinent to consideration of psychological factors

of remorse and insight into responsibility for the offense. (Id.

at 11-12.) Petitioner’s reference to exhibits was sufficient to

round out his contentions. 

3

Case 1:09-cv-01276-LJO -JMD Document 15 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 5
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

The Court notes that in response to the motion for a more

definite statement, Petitioner filed a twenty-six (26) page

response in which he detailed his legal arguments and made

references to the facts that it appears will be found in the

record to be provided by Respondent with the response. (Doc.

13.)

The Court concludes that the decision challenged by

Petitioner, the pertinent facts underlying the decision, and the

Petitioner’s due process challenge to the BPH’s denial of parole

are sufficiently set forth to permit Respondent to file a

response to the petition. Petitioner clarifies that the

references in the petition are to exhibits and memoranda attached

to the petitions submitted to the state courts. The Court

understands that Respondent has access to those documents as well

as to the record of the administrative proceedings undertaken in

the course of denying Petitioner’s application for parole. 

Further, it is anticipated that when Respondent does file a

response to the petition, Respondent will provide the pertinent

record. Finally, Petitioner’s response to Respondent’s motion

sets forth great detail with respect to Petitioner’s legal

arguments. It appears to the Court that Petitioner has set forth

sufficient matter to permit an intelligent response. 

Accordingly, the motion for a more definite statement is

DENIED.

II. Respondent’s Motion for a Stay

Respondent moved for a stay of the proceedings because it

was possible that a decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546

(9th Cir. 2010) would determine that this Court lacks

4

Case 1:09-cv-01276-LJO -JMD Document 15 Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 5
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

jurisdiction over the petition.

The Court notes that after rehearing en banc, the court

decided Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) on

April 22, 2010. The Court takes judicial notice of the docket of

Hayward v. Marshall, no. 06-55392, in the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court notes that the mandate 1

issued on June 10, 2010. (Doc. 121.) Further, the decision does

not appear to be inconsistent with this Court’s having

jurisdiction over the instant petition.

Accordingly, Respondent’s motion for a stay is DENIED as

moot.

III. Order to Respondent to File a Response to the Petition

On November 10, 2009, the Court directed Respondent to file

a response to the petition and set a briefing schedule. (Doc.

5.) All the terms of that order remain in effect, and Respondent

is DIRECTED to file a response to the petition in accordance with

the Court’s order of November 10, 2009, no later than sixty (60)

days after the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court may take judicial notice of court records. Fed. R. Evid.

1

201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993);

Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 1978),

aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981).

5

Case 1:09-cv-01276-LJO -JMD Document 15 Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 5