Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04803/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04803-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert J. Ayers
Respondent
Jerry June Claborn
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY JUNE CLABORN,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT J. AYERS, Warden, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-4803 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

On August 8, 2006, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 8, 2006, petitioner was ordered to pay the filing

fee, which he has done. 

BACKGROUND

In 1979, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, petitioner was convicted of kidnaping

for purposes of robbery with use of a deadly weapon and rape; he was sentenced to a term of

7 years to life plus one year in state prison. In 2004, the California Board of Prison Hearings

(“BPH”) denied petitioner parole. Petitioner challenged this decision unsuccessfully in

habeas petitions filed at all three levels of the California courts. 

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

Case 3:06-cv-04803-MMC Document 7 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 4
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

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). A district court 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." 

28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the

petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner claims: (1) the BPH denied petitioner parole based on insufficient evidence;

(2) the BPH “cannot require an admission of guilt before granting parole”; (3) the BPH

denied parole based upon the prosecutor’s opposition to parole, which is an insufficient basis

for the BPH’s decision; (4) petitioner is entitled to an “impartial hearing panel;” (5) there was

no evidence to support the BPH’s recommendation that petitioner seek more therapy or selfhelp; (6) in reaching its decision, the BPH failed to consider the determinate sentence term

petitioner would serve or the amount of time petitioner had already served; (7) the BPH has

never held a hearing to “fix petitioner’s primary term”; (8) the BPH failed to give reasons for

denying petitioner parole for two years as opposed to the default period of one year; (9) the

BPH incorrectly stated psychiatric evaluations were unfavorable; and (10) the BPH denied

parole based on petitioner’s concurrent prison term for rape, in violation of the Ex Post Facto

Clause of the federal and state constitutions. 

The first nine claims fail to state a cognizable basis for federal habeas relief, in that

they do not allege a violation of federal law. A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 "only on the basis of some transgression of federal law binding on the state

courts." Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456

U.S. 107, 119 (1982)), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). It is not available to redress

violations of state law or for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. 

See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Here, in his first nine claims, petitioner

Case 3:06-cv-04803-MMC Document 7 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 4
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

has not identified what law allegedly was violated, as is necessary to provide respondent with

adequate notice of the claims being asserted. See Hendricks, 908 F.2d at 491-92 (holding

petitioner must state claims with sufficient specificity to allow respondent to prepare a

response). Petitioner will be given leave to amend these nine claims to allege what federal

law, if any, he is asserting was violated. Failure to so amend will result in dismissal of these

claims. Petitioner is advised that any federal basis for such claims must be exhausted, by

petitioner’s having sufficiently presented the federal basis for the claims, in addition to any

other arguments in support of the claims, to the Supreme Court of California, before raising

them in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16

(1982). 

Liberally construed, petitioner’s tenth claim is cognizable. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Court rules as follows:

1. Petitioner’s first nine claims are dismissed with leave to amend. If petitioner

wishes to amend these two claims, he must, within thirty (30) days of the date this order is

filed, file an amended petition in which he corrects the deficiencies noted above. The

amended petition must include the caption and civil case number used in this order, No. C

06-4803 MMC (PR), and must include the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. 

In the amended petition, petitioner must include all the claims he wishes to present; in

particular, petitioner must reassert in his amended petition the cognizable tenth claim from

the instant petition.

2. If petitioner fails to timely amend the petition as ordered herein, the first

nine claims will be dismissed and this matter will proceed only on the basis of the tenth

claim.

//

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-04803-MMC Document 7 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

3. It is petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and/or Civil Local Rule 3-11, for failure to

prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 10, 2007 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04803-MMC Document 7 Filed 05/10/07 Page 4 of 4