Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01424/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01424-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Gray
Petitioner
R. Grounds
Respondent

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM GRAY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

R. GROUNDS, Acting Warden, 

Respondent(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-1424 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole

Hearings' ("BPH") March 27, 2008 decision to deny him parole. 

BACKGROUND

On November 18, 1988, petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term

of 27 years to life in state prison after a jury in Los Angeles County Superior

Court found him guilty of first degree murder with use of a firearm. 

Petitioner has been found not suitable for parole each time he has appeared

before the BPH. On February 24, 2010, the Supreme Court of California denied

review of his challenge to the BPH's decision of March 27, 2008.

DISCUSSION

Case 3:10-cv-01424-CRB Document 4 Filed 08/09/10 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

A. 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. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from the BPH's March 27,

2008 decision finding him not suitable for parole on the ground that the decision

does not comport with due process because it is not supported by some evidence

demonstrating that he poses a current unreasonable threat to the public. Liberally

construed, petitioner's claim appears colorable under § 2254 and merits an answer

from respondent. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 561-64 (9th Cir.

2010) (en banc) (finding cognizable on federal habeas review claims that

California parole denials were made without some evidence of future

dangerousness).

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, 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

60 days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule

5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of

Case 3:10-cv-01424-CRB Document 4 Filed 08/09/10 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

habeas corpus should not be issued. 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. 

3. 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 30 days of his

receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Aug. 3, 2010 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.10\Gray, W1.osc.wpd

Case 3:10-cv-01424-CRB Document 4 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 3