Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02341/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02341-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. Curry
Respondent
Melvin Dorthick
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

MELVIN DORTHICK,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-1012 CRB (PR)

No. C 07-2341 CRB (PR) 

(Doc # 2)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training

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

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole

Hearings' ("BPH") January 24, 2006 decision to deny him parole for two years. 

In the first petition, petitioner challenges BPH's finding that he is not suitable for

parole and, in the second petition, petitioner challenges BPH's decision not to

grant him another parole suitability hearing for two years.

In order to simplify these proceedings, the clerk is instructed to

consolidate the two petitions as follows: file a copy of the petition in case

number C 07-2341 into case number C 07-1012, and close the file (and terminate

all motions) in case number C 07-2341. All future filings shall take place in case

number C 07-1012 only.

Case 3:07-cv-02341-CRB Document 4 Filed 08/02/07 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

 

BACKGROUND

In 1974, petitioner was convicted of first degree murder by a jury in the

Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda and

was sentenced to life in state prison with the possibility of parole in seven years. 

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

BPH (formerly the Board of Prison Terms ("BPT")). On January 24, 2007 and

March 21, 2007, the Supreme Court of California denied review of his current

challenges to the BPH's decision of January 24, 2006.

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 U.S.C. § 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 January 24,

2006 decision to deny him parole for two years. Among other things, petitioner

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

an indicia of reliability. Petitioner also claims that the parole decision based on

the Determinate Sentencing Law ("DSL") and DSL regulations, rather than under

the Indeterminate Sentencing Law ("ISL") and regulations in force at the time of

his offense and sentencing, violated his rights under the ex post facto and due

Case 3:07-cv-02341-CRB Document 4 Filed 08/02/07 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

process clauses. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims appear colorable under §

2254 and merit an answer from respondent. See Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison

Terms, 461 F.3d 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. 

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. 

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 within 30 days of his

receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Aug. 02, 2007 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.07\Dorthick, M1.or1.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02341-CRB Document 4 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 3