Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01334/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01334-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. Horel
Respondent
Joseph Jackson
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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH JACKSON,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT A. HOREL, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-1334 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Joseph Jackson, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is before the court for review

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Jackson reports in his petition that he was convicted in the Los Angeles County Superior

Court of kidnapping for robbery and was found to have used a weapon in the offense. He reports

that he was sentenced in 1982 to a term of "life plus one year" in prison. Petition, p. 2. His

petition does not challenge his conviction but instead challenges a decision by the Board of

Prison Terms ("BPT") at a January 27, 2005 hearing that found him not suitable for parole.

Case 3:07-cv-01334-SI Document 4 Filed 04/23/07 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).

Jackson alleges that the BPT's decision that he was unsuitable for parole violated his right

to due process because it was not supported by some evidence. Liberally construed, the

allegations state a cognizable claim for a due process violation. See Board of Pardons v. Allen,

482 U.S. 369 (1987); Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1128-29 (9th

Cir. 2006) (adopting some evidence standard for disciplinary hearings outlined in Superintendent

v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55 (1985)). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The due process claim based on insufficiency of the evidence is cognizable and

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 June 29, 2007, 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

Case 3:07-cv-01334-SI Document 4 Filed 04/23/07 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

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 August 3, 2007.

5. The court did not receive the filing fee that petitioner claims he sent. He should

check with the inmate trust account office at his prison to obtain a replacement check. This

action will be dismissed if petitioner has not paid the filing fee by August 3, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 23, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01334-SI Document 4 Filed 04/23/07 Page 3 of 3