Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03693/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03693-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Escarcega
Petitioner
A. P. Kane
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

RAUL ESCARCEGA,

Petitioner,

v.

A. P. KANE, warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 06-3693 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Raul Escarcega, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, 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. His in forma pauperis application also is before the court for review. 

BACKGROUND

Escarcega reports in his petition that he was convicted in the Los Angeles County

Superior Court of kidnapping for robbery and was sentenced to 10 years to life in prison. His

petition does not challenge his conviction but instead challenges a decision by the Board of

Prison Terms ("BPT") at a June 3, 2004 hearing that found him not suitable for parole.

Case 3:06-cv-03693-SI Document 5 Filed 11/08/06 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).

Escarcega alleges that his right to due process was violated because there was not

sufficient evidence that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger if paroled. Liberally construed,

the allegation states a cognizable claim for a due process violation based on the insufficiency of

the evidence to support the decision that Escarcega was not suitable for parole. See Board of

Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr.

Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979); Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127-28

(9th Cir. 2006). 

Escarcega also alleges that the failure of the BPT to set a release date and to provide a

uniform term violated his right to due process. The California Supreme Court has determined

that California state law is that a release date need not be set until the individual is found suitable

for parole. The statutory scheme places individual suitability for parole above a prisoner's

expectancy in early setting of a fixed date designed to ensure term uniformity. In re Dannenberg,

34 Cal. 4th 1061, 1070-71 (Cal.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 92 (2005). Under state law, the matrix

is not reached unless and until the prisoner is found suitable for parole. See id. at 1070-71

(discussing use of matrix in murder cases); 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 2282(a) ("[t]he panel shall set

a base term for each life prisoner who is found suitable for parole"). The California Supreme

Court's determination of state law in Dannenberg is binding in this federal habeas action. See

Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 629-30 (1988). There is no constitutionally protected liberty

Case 3:06-cv-03693-SI Document 5 Filed 11/08/06 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

interest in having a release date set or having term uniformity considered unless and until the

prisoner is found suitable for parole. Escarcega was not found suitable for parole. His claims

that the failure to set a release date or provide a uniform term violated his right to due process

are dismissed with prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The due process claim based on insufficiency of the evidence warrants a response

from respondent. All other claims are dismissed.

 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 December 15, 2006,

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 January 19, 2007.

5. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED because he has ample funds

to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Docket # 2, # 4.) Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee no later

than November 24, 2006 or this action will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 8, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03693-SI Document 5 Filed 11/08/06 Page 3 of 3