Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04850/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04850-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Davis
Respondent
Gary Harrell
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY HARRELL,

Petitioner,

 vs.

RON DAVIS,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-4850 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, has filed a

habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of

the decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) that Petitioner is

ineligible for release. He has paid the filing fee. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted in Orange County Superior Court of murder in 1997. He

was sentenced to a term of seven years to life in state prison. The Board has repeatedly

found him unsuitable for parole. Petitioner has filed habeas petitions in all three levels of

the California courts challenging the Board’s decision. These habeas petitions were

Case 4:15-cv-04850-JSW Document 9 Filed 01/28/16 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

denied. The instant federal habeas petition followed. 

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’s five claims challenging the Board’s actions on federal constitutional

grounds are, when liberally construed, cognizable. Therefore, an answer from

Respondent is warranted. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The Clerk shall serve 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 ninety-one

(91) 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 twenty-eight (28) days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may, within ninety-one (91) days, file a motion to dismiss on

Case 4:15-cv-04850-JSW Document 9 Filed 01/28/16 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

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 twenty-eight (28) days of the date the motion is filed, and

Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14)

days of the date any opposition is filed.

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: January 28, 2016 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04850-JSW Document 9 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 3