Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06234/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06234-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ben Curry
Defendant
Anthony Singleton
Petitioner

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY SINGLETON,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 06-6234 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

INTRODUCTION

Anthony Singleton, 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 now

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

Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Singleton was convicted in Los Angeles County Superior Court of second degree murder

and was sentenced in 1982 to 15 years to life in prison. His petition does not challenge his

conviction but instead challenges a decision by the Board of Parole Hearings ("BPH") at a

hearing on an unstated date that found him not suitable for parole. Singleton alleges that he filed

habeas petitions in state courts before filing this action. 

Case 3:06-cv-06234-SI Document 2 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

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).

Singleton's petition alleges two claims. First, he contends that his right to due process has

been violated because his plea agreement has been breached. It appears that he is claiming that

the refusal to parole him amounted to a breach of his plea agreement. The due process claim for

a breach of the plea agreement is cognizable. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261-

62 (1971) (defendant has a right to enforce terms of plea agreement). Second, he alleges that

the continued use of his commitment offense as evidence to justify his continued incarceration

is unfair. Liberally construed, this appears to be a claim for a due process violation based on the

insufficiency of the evidence to support the parole denial. The claim is cognizable in habeas.

See Board of Pardons v. Hill, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms,

461 F.3d 1123, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2006). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition's due process claims warrant 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 AttorneyGeneral of the State

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

Case 3:06-cv-06234-SI Document 2 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

3

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before February 23, 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 March 30, 2007.

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He must keep the court

informed of any change of address and 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: December 15, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06234-SI Document 2 Filed 12/15/06 Page 3 of 3