Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02858/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02858-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert L. Ayers
Respondent
Jesse L. Reed
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

JESSE L. REED, 

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT L. AYERS, warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 08-2858 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

INTRODUCTION

Jesse L. Reed, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the court for

review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Reed was convicted in or about 1985 in an unidentified court of first degree murder

and was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. His petition does not challenge his

conviction but instead challenges a June 22, 2007 decision by Governor Arnold

Schwarzenegger to find him unsuitable for parole, reversing a January 23, 2007 decision by

the Board of Parole Hearings ("BPH") that he was suitable for parole. Attachments to the

petition indicate that Reed filed habeas petitions in state courts, including the California

Supreme Court, before filing this action. 

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-02858-MHP Document 4 Filed 08/05/08 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

DISCUSSION

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). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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).

Reed alleges in his petition that the governor's decision violated his right to due

process because it was not supported by some evidence and was based on different evidence

than that relied on by the BPH. Liberally construed, the allegations present a cognizable

claim for a due process violation. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); Sass

v. California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Reed also alleges that the governor's reversal of the BPH's decision violated his right

to be free from the ex post facto application of laws. He contends that an ex post facto

violation occurred because the governor did not obtain the legal authority to revoke a grant of

parole until the enactment of Proposition 89, which occurred years after Reed had committed

his crime. The claim is foreclosed by the decision in Johnson v. Gomez, 92 F.3d 964, 967

(9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1242 (1997), in which the Ninth Circuit held that

Proposition 89's change in the governor's role in the parole process was not an ex post facto

law. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The due process claim in the petition warrants a response from respondent. 

The ex post facto claim is dismissed. 

Case 3:08-cv-02858-MHP Document 4 Filed 08/05/08 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, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before October 24,

2008, 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 issued. Respondent must

file with the answer a copy of all portions of the parole hearing record that have been

previously transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition.

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before November 28, 2008.

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2008 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02858-MHP Document 4 Filed 08/05/08 Page 3 of 3