Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00501/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00501-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Grounds
Respondent
Arnulfo Soza
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

ARNULFO SOZA, 

Petitioner,

v.

R. GROUNDS, warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 10-501 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

INTRODUCTION

Arnulfo Soza, 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. His 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

Soza states in his petition that he is serving a sentence of 17 years to life in prison as a

result of a conviction in Ventura County Superior Court for second degree murder. His

petition does not challenge his conviction but instead challenges a decision by Governor

Schwarzenegger on June 12, 2009 to reverse the Board of Parole Hearings ("BPH") decision

and to find him not suitable for parole. Soza reports that he filed an unsuccessful habeas

petition in the California Supreme Court, before filing this action. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-00501-MHP Document 4 Filed 07/29/10 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

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).

Petitioner alleges in his petition that the Governor's decision violated his federal right

to due process because it was not supported by sufficient evidence. Liberally construed, this

claim is cognizable in a federal habeas action. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition's federal claim warrants a response. 

 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 October 1, 2010,

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.

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 November 5, 2010. Petitioner's

traverse, including any memorandum of points and authorities, may not exceed 20 pages in

Case 3:10-cv-00501-MHP Document 4 Filed 07/29/10 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

length. 

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 29, 2010 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00501-MHP Document 4 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 3