Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05234/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05234-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Boatman
Petitioner
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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER BOATMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 06-5234 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Christopher Boatman, 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 before the court

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

BACKGROUND

According to the transfer order in this case, Boatman was convicted and sentenced in

Fresno County Superior Court. The date and terms of his sentence are not stated in his petition.

His petition does not challenge his conviction but instead challenges an August 24, 2005

decision by Governor Schwarzenegger that reversed the April 6, 2005 decision of the Board of

Parole Hearings ("BPH") that found him suitable for parole. Boatman alleges that he filed

unsuccessful state habeas petitions before filing this action.

Case 3:06-cv-05234-SI Document 2 Filed 11/13/06 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

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).

Boatman alleges that Governor Schwarzenegger's decision was not supported by

sufficient evidence. Liberally construed, the allegation states 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, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 2006). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The due process claim warrants a response from respondent. 

 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 January 19, 2007,

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.

Case 3:06-cv-05234-SI Document 2 Filed 11/13/06 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

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 February 23, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 13, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05234-SI Document 2 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 3