Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04010/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04010-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Anderson
Petitioner
C. E. Ducart
Respondent

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

C. E. DUCART,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-04010-JST 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison and proceeding pro se, 

has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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); Rose 

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court 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. 

B. Petitioner's Claims

According to the petition, on February 8, 2013, Petitioner was validated as a member of a 

prison gang and consequently placed in Pelican Bay’s Security Housing Unit (“SHU”). See

Docket No. 1-1 at 1 and 13. Petitioner alleges that his 2013 gang validation violated his due 

process rights because prison officials did not provide him with a hearing and an opportunity to 

Case 3:15-cv-04010-JST Document 4 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

present his views prior to his validation, and because the evidence relied upon in his validation did 

not meet the “some evidence” standard. It appears that the expungement of Petitioner’s gang 

validation would result in his release from SHU to the general population. Liberally construed, 

Petitioner’s claims are cognizable under § 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent. See, e.g., 

Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992, 1005–06 (9th Cir. 2015) (prisoner’s claim that gang validation 

process violated his due process rights was cognizable in habeas because expungement of the gang 

violation would result in release from SHU to the general prison population) (“we remain bound 

by the determination in Bostic [v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989)] that a prisoner 

can seek expungement of an incident from his disciplinary record when that would lead to 

speedier release from disciplinary segregation.”). 

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition, with all attachments, to 

the Respondent and the Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. 

The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety-one

(91) 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 

based on the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on 

Petitioner a copy of all portions of the record of the gang validation proceedings 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 twenty-eight (28) days of the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within ninety-one (91) days, 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 twenty-eight 

(28) days of the date the motion is filed, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on 

Petitioner a reply within fourteen (14) days of the date any opposition is filed.

Case 3:15-cv-04010-JST Document 4 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on 

Respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner 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). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 

(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04010-JST Document 4 Filed 12/10/15 Page 3 of 3