Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07230/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07230-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ben Curry
Respondent
Juan Peralta
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN PERALTA,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-7230 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Juan Peralta, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this pro se

action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is before the

court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Peralta reports in his petition that he was convicted in the Los Angeles County Superior

Court of second degree murder and was sentenced to 17 years to life in prison in an unidentified

year. His petition does not challenge his conviction but instead challenges a decision by the

Board of Prison Terms ("BPT") at a hearing on an unidentified date (presumably the most recent

hearing earlier than January 20, 2006) finding him not suitable for parole.

Case 3:06-cv-07230-SI Document 4 Filed 03/23/07 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

DISCUSSION

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). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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." 28

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

Peralta alleges that the BPT's decision was not supported by sufficient and reliable

evidence. Liberally construed, the allegations state cognizable claims for due process violations.

See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); 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) (due process

requires that "some evidence" must support the parole authority's decision); Biggs v. Terhune,

334 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Peralta also appears to claim that requiring him to participate in a 12-step program to be

found parole-suitable violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because 12-step

programs are religious in nature. See Petition, p. 8. Liberally construed, these allegations also

state a cognizable claim. See Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472, 476-80 (7th Cir. 1996) (requiring

inmate to attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings or be rated a higher security risk and have

parole eligibility adversely affected violated Establishment Clause); Warner v. Orange County

Dep't of Probation, 870 F. Supp. 69, 72-73 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); but cf. O'Connor v. California, 855

F. Supp. 303, 307-08 (C.D. Cal. 1994) (upholding policy of requiring persons convicted of drunk

driving to attend self-help program where AA was primary program offered but non-spiritual

alternative program called Rational Recovery was also offered).

Case 3:06-cv-07230-SI Document 4 Filed 03/23/07 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

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition presents cognizable habeas claims and warrants a response from

respondent. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State

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

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before May 25, 2007, 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 must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the parole hearing record that have been previously transcribed

and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before June 29, 2007.

5. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED because he has ample funds

to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (Docket # 3.) Petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee no later than

April 27, 2007 or this action will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 23, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07230-SI Document 4 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 3