Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04900/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04900-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Board of Parole Hearings
Respondent
Ben Curry
Respondent
Simeon Lujao
Petitioner

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIMEON LUJAO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4900 VRW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 USC § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole

Hearings' ("BPH") September 5, 2006 decision to deny him parole.

 BACKGROUND

On August 30, 1988, petitioner pleaded guilty to second degree murder in

San Benito County superior court and was sentenced to 15 years to life in state

prison. 

Petitioner has been denied parole each time he has appeared before the

BPH. On August 8, 2007, the Supreme Court of California denied review of his

challenge to the BPH's September 5, 2006 decision to deny him parole and a

subsequent hearing for four years.

Case 3:07-cv-04900-VRW Document 3 Filed 01/17/08 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

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a 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 USC § 2254(a). 

It 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." Id § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from the BPH's September 5,

2006 decision to deny him parole, and a subsequent hearing for four years, on the

ground that it does not comport with due process. Among other things, petitioner

claims that the decision is not supported by some evidence in the record and that

it violates his plea agreement. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims appear

colorable under § 2254 and merit an answer from respondent. See Sass v Cal Bd

of Prison Terms, 461 F3d 1123, 1127-29 (9th Cir 2006) (finding that refusal to

set parole date for prisoner with 15-to-life sentence implicated prisoner’s liberty

interest in release on parole which cannot be denied without adequate procedural

due process protections).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petitions and all attachments thereto on respondent and respondent's attorney, the

Attorney General of the State of California. The clerk also shall serve a copy of

this order on petitioner. 

Case 3:07-cv-04900-VRW Document 3 Filed 01/17/08 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 G:\PRO-SE\VRW\HC.07\Lujao, S1osc.wpd 3

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

60 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 issued. 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 30 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 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 30 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 true copy of the document to respondent’s

counsel. Petitioner must also keep the court and all parties informed of any

change of address. 

SO ORDERED.

 VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04900-VRW Document 3 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 3