Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02648/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02648-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Davis
Respondent
Harold Phillips
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD PHILLIPS, C20212,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-02648-SK (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro 

se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the execution of 

an indeterminate life sentence from Los Angeles County Superior Court. 

The petition is properly before the undersigned for initial review because petitioner 

has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, three 

counts of rape by force or violence, and three counts of oral copulation in concert with 

another. The jury also found true allegations that he personally used a firearm in the 

commission of a felony. On or about August 1, 1980, petitioner was sentenced to a life 

term, plus 15 years and eight months, with the possibility of parole.

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

the California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) or its predecessor. On October 20, 2015, 

the Los Angeles County Superior Court denied in a reasoned opinion petitioner’s various 

claims against BPH’s continued refusal to grant him parole. The California Court of 

Case 3:16-cv-02648-CRB Document 10 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

Appeal and the Supreme Court of California summary denied him state habeas relief on 

December 18, 2015 and April 13, 2016, respectively.

DISCUSSION

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. Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from BPH’s continued refusal to grant 

him parole on various grounds, including that he is being held in excess of his expected 

sentence at the time he was sentenced and that he has already served a sentence that is 

grossly disproportionate to his individual culpability. Liberally construed, the claims 

appear arguably cognizable under § 2254 and therefore merit an answer from respondent. 

See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro 

se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall serve (1) a copy of this order, (2) the petition and all 

attachments thereto (ECF Nos. 1 & 5), and (3) a notice of assignment of prisoner case to a 

United States magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or 

declination to consent form (requesting that respondent consent or decline to consent 

within 28 days of receipt of service), 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. 

Case 3:16-cv-02648-CRB Document 10 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 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 30 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 must serve and file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition not more than 28 days after the motion is served 

and filed, and respondent must serve and file a reply to an opposition not more than 14 

days after the opposition is served and filed.

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 also keep the court and all parties informed of any change of address.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2016 

_______________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02648-CRB Document 10 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 3