Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01201/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01201-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Earl Bowden
Petitioner
Ben Curry
Respondent

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL BOWDEN,

Petitioner, 

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1201 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This is a habeas case challenging denial of parole filed by a prisoner currently

incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad. The case was transferred he from

the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Petitioner has paid the

filing fee. 

 The petition attacks denial of parole, so venue is proper in this district, which is where

petitioner is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) (venue proper in both district of conviction and

district of confinement).

DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

Case 3:08-cv-01201-WHA Document 4 Filed 10/03/08 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

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient

are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d

1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

In 1981 petitioner pled guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to seven

years to life. He alleges that he has exhausted these parole claims by way of state habeas

petitions. 

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) there was not “some

evidence” in the record to support the governor’s reversal of the Board of Parole Hearings’

grant of a parole date; (2) petitioner’s offense was not “some evidence” to support the

governor’s decision; (3) there was no evidence to support the governor’s conclusion that

petitioner would be a danger to society if released; and (4) the governor’s reversal of the

Board’s grant of a parole date was not supported by reliable evidence, because the evidence

cited in support of the denial was thirty years old.

It appears that all petitioner’s issues are variations on a claim that the governor’s

decision was not evidence adequate to satisfy due process, a claim that is cognizable in habeas. 

See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (warning that repeated denial of

parole based on unchanging characteristics of offense might violate due process); McQuillion v.

Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 904 (9th Cir. 2002) (due process requires that at least “some evidence”

support parole denial). An order to show cause will issue. 

Case 3:08-cv-01201-WHA Document 4 Filed 10/03/08 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

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty days of the

issuance of this order, 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. 

Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state

trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the

issues presented by the petition. 

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

court and serving it on respondent within thirty days of his receipt of the answer.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer,

as set forth in 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 days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the

court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of receipt of any opposition.

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on

respondent by mailing a copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Papers intended to be

filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk rather than to the undersigned. Petitioner also

must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk

headed “Notice of Change of Address,” and comply with any orders of the court within the time

allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. 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: October 3 , 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.08\BOWDEN1201.OSC.wpd 

Case 3:08-cv-01201-WHA Document 4 Filed 10/03/08 Page 3 of 3