Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02908/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02908-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Davis
Respondent
Chung Kao
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

No. C 15-2908 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 10/20/15*

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CHUNG KAO,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD DAVIS, 

Respondent. /

No. C 15-2908 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, now housed at San Quentin, seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 from the loss of good time credits imposed by his jailors at the R.J. Donovan

Correctional Facility. The petition for such relief is here for review under 28 U.S.C. § 2243

and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent shall file a response to

the petition on or before January 22, 2016. 

This Court’s jurisdiction over a petition for habeas relief from a prison disciplinary

decision has been called into question by Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2015). 

In his first response to the petition, respondent shall address, preferably by way of a motion

to dismiss, whether (1) Nettles requires dismissal of the instant action, and (2) petitioner can

or should bring his claims through a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 2012, petitioner received an unconstitutional disciplinary

hearing and was deprived of 60 days of good time credits. It appears petitioner has

Case 3:15-cv-02908-RS Document 3 Filed 10/20/15 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

No. C 15-2908 RS (PR)

2 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

exhausted his state judicial remedies. 

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 claims that his jailors deprived him of

due process (1) at his disciplinary hearing, and (2) when he attempted to pursue his

administrative grievances regarding the hearing. When liberally construed, these claims

appear to be cognizable in a federal habeas action.

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve 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

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. 

Case 3:15-cv-02908-RS Document 3 Filed 10/20/15 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

No. C 15-2908 RS (PR)

3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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.

8. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 2. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02908-RS Document 3 Filed 10/20/15 Page 3 of 3