Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02544/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02544-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Brown
Respondent
James Thomas
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

JAMES THOMAS, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

J. BROWN, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2544 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging the Board of Prison Terms ("BPT") denial of parole during parole suitability

proceedings. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. This order directs Respondent to show

cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner pled guilty in Los Angeles County Superior

Court to second-degree murder. On August 2, 1983, he was committed to a term of

sixteen years-to-life in state prison. In this habeas action, Petitioner does not challenge

his conviction, but instead challenges the execution of his sentence. Petitioner alleges

that he was told by his attorney that if he accepted the plea agreement he would be

eligible for parole in ten years and, if he behaved, he could expect to be paroled after

having served between ten and twenty-one years of his sentence. However, on July 20,

Case 3:05-cv-02544-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/12/06 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

2004, after having served more than twenty-two years in prison, the BPT found

Petitioner unsuitable for parole at his eighth parole suitability hearing. Petitioner

contends that the denial of parole by the BPT violates his constitutional right to due

process, violates the terms of his plea agreement, and denies him of his right to a trial by

jury under the Sixth Amendment. He alleges that he has exhausted state judicial

remedies as to all of the claims raised in his federal petition.

DISCUSSION

I. 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. 

II. Legal Claims

Petitioner alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by the parole denial

by the BPT in 2004. Liberally construed, the allegations are sufficient to warrant a

response from Respondent. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); see,

e.g., Morales. v. California Dep't of Corrections, 16 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 1994),

rev'd on other grounds, 514 U.S. 499 (1995).

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 petition, 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 sixty (60)

Case 3:05-cv-02544-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/12/06 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

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 (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

thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and

serve on Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice

of Change of Address.” He 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)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Jan. 12, 2006 

 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02544-JSW Document 3 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 3