Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06053/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06053-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Grounds
Defendant
Scott Edward Hayden
Plaintiff

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

No. C 09-6053 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 4/16/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SCOTT EDWARD HAYDEN,

Petitioner,

v.

R. GROUNDS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 09-6053 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Scott Edward Hayden, a California state prisoner, filed this pro se action for

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. 

Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, petitioner was convicted in 1992 of second degree murder,

and was sentenced to sixteen years to life in state prison. In 2008, the Board of Parole

Hearings found petitioner suitable for parole. In that same year, the Governor of California

reversed the Board’s decision to grant parole. Seeking to overturn the Governor’s decision,

Case 3:09-cv-06053-RS Document 5 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 4
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

No. C 09-6053 RS (PR)

2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

petitioner sought, and was denied, state habeas relief. This federal habeas petition followed. 

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). 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that the Governor’s decision

(1) violated his state and federal due process rights because it was not based on sufficient

evidence that petitioner is currently dangerous; and (2) used the incorrect standard of review

in violation of petitioner’s state and federal rights to due process. Petitioner’s state

constitutional claims are dismissed. Federal habeas relief is unavailable for 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). Petitioner’s federal claims, however, appear to be

cognizable in a federal habeas action when liberally construed. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s counsel, the Attorney General for the

State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within ninety (90)

days of the date this order is filed, 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 based on petitioner’s cognizable claims. Respondent shall file with the answer

Case 3:09-cv-06053-RS Document 5 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 4
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

No. C 09-6053 RS (PR)

3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that previously have

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

petition. 

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

with the Court and serving it on respondent’s counsel within thirty (30) days of the date the

answer is filed. 

4. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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 (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and

respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of

the date any opposition is filed.

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. 

6. 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 for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

7. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 15, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-06053-RS Document 5 Filed 04/16/10 Page 3 of 4
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

No. C 09-6053 RS (PR)

4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO:

Scott Edward Hayden 

H-36360 

PO Box 689 East Dorm 169 up 

Soledad, CA 93960-0689 

DATED: 04/16/2010 

 

 

s/ Chambers Staff 

Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who

have not registered with the Court's electronic filing system.

Case 3:09-cv-06053-RS Document 5 Filed 04/16/10 Page 4 of 4