Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04024/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04024-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Henry Bibbs
Petitioner
Board of Parole Hearings
Respondent
Anthony P. Kane
Respondent
Arnold Schwarzenegger
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

1

 Respondent had filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s amended petition, arguing

that Petitioner failed to exhaust his claim that the state statutory guidelines are

unconstitutionally vague. In response, Petitioner filed a second amended petition without

this claim. Accordingly, the Court finds the motion to dismiss the amended petition is

MOOT, as well as Petitioner’s request for an extension of time to file an opposition to such

motion. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT HENRY BIBBS,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY P. KANE, Warden, and BOARD

OF PAROLE HEARINGS, ARNOLD

SCHWARZENEGGER, real parties in interest,

Respondents. /

No. C 05-04024 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

SECOND AMENDED PETITION

Movant, Albert Henry Bibbs, a state prisoner, has filed a second amended petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of one count of attempted willful, deliberate and

premeditated murder (Cal. Penal Code §§ 187, 664) and was sentenced to life plus five years,

with enhancements pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 12022.7 and 12022.55.

LEGAL CLAIMS

Petitioner does not challenge the validity of his underlying conviction or the resulting

sentence. Rather, Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief by raising the claim that the

California Board of Parole Hearings has violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th

Case 3:05-cv-04024-JSW Document 26 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Amendment to the United States Constitution by its repeated denials of parole to Petitioner. 

Liberally construed, the claim appears potentially colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and merit

an answer from Respondents.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. Respondents shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within 60 days of

the date 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. Respondents shall file with the answer and serve on

Petitioner a copy of all portions of the administrative record that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented by the petition.

2. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving it on Respondents within 30 days of his receipt of the

answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04024-JSW Document 26 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 2