Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05309/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rizalino G. Cayabo
Petitioner
Arnold Schwarzenegger
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

RIZALINO G. CAYABO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5309 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at

Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the Governor of California’s decision to deny

Petitioner parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. This order directs Respondent to

show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder in

Tulare County Superior Court and, on July 1, 1985, the trial court sentenced him to a term

of 17 years-to-life in state prison. In May 9, 2006, the California Board of Parole

Hearings (“Board”) found petitioner suitable for parole. This decision was affirmed by

the Board’s “Decision Review Unit.” On September 28, 2006, Governor

Schwarzenegger reversed the Board’s decision and found petitioner unsuitable for

parole. Petitioner challenged this decision unsuccessfully in all three levels of the

Case 3:07-cv-05309-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/02/08 Page 1 of 4
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

California courts, and thereafter filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

DISCUSSION

I 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. 

II Legal Claims

Petitioner alleges that the Governor’s decision violated his right to due process. 

Liberally construed, the allegations are sufficient to warrant a response from Respondent. 

See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); see, e.g., Morales. v. California

Dep't of Corrections, 16 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 514

U.S. 499 (1995).

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 and Respondent's attorney, 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 sixty (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

Case 3:07-cv-05309-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/02/08 Page 2 of 4
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

to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on

Respondent within thirty (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 shall file with the Court

and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty (30)

days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice

of Change of Address.” He 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: April 2, 2008 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05309-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/02/08 Page 3 of 4
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

RIZALINO G. CAYABO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-05309 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 2, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Rizalino G. Cayabo

D09912

Correctional Training Facility

P.O. Box 705

Soledad, CA 93960

Dated: April 2, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-05309-JSW Document 3 Filed 04/02/08 Page 4 of 4