Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01782/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01782-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Ayers
Respondent
Luther G. Jamison
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

LUTHER G. JAMISON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT AYERS, Warden,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-1782 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a California prisoner currently incarcerated at

the San Quentin State Prison. It was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California, which transferred it here. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

 The petition attacks denial of parole, so venue is proper in this district, which is

where petitioner is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder in 1983. He received a sentence of

twenty-five years to life in prison. He alleges that he has exhausted these parole claims by

way of state habeas petitions. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

Case 4:07-cv-01782-PJH Document 13 Filed 11/07/07 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

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes

(quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which

appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon

v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

The petition is directed to a finding that petitioner was not suitable for parole made

by the Board of Prison Terms on August 23, 2004. As grounds for federal habeas relief,

petitioner asserts that: (1) is due process rights were violated when the Board stopped his

verbal presentation of his position and did not allow him to introduce relevant documentary

evidence; (2) his due process rights were violated because California’s parole statute

allows presentation of all facts, including facts to resolve issues not previously resolved; (3)

the California parole statute violated due process because it lacks procedural safeguards;

and (4) the Board violated his due process rights by continuing to rely on the circumstances

of his offense as grounds to deny suitability for parole. 

Issue two is difficult to understand, but it appears that petitioner is contending that he

was not allowed to present the arguments and facts at the hearing that he contends a

California statute permits. This is not grounds for federal habeas relief, see Estelle v.

McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991), and so this issue will be dismissed. The other issues

are sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s second issue is DISMISSED. 

Case 4:07-cv-01782-PJH Document 13 Filed 11/07/07 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

2. 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. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty 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 thirty days of his receipt of the answer.

4. 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 days of

receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply

within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

5. 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 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). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\jamison1782.osc.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-01782-PJH Document 13 Filed 11/07/07 Page 3 of 3