Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05014/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05014-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Santos Chavez
Petitioner
Ben Curry
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTOS CHAVEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-5014 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

He has paid the filing fee.

 The petition attacks denial of parole, so venue is proper in this district, which is

where petitioner is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder in 1984. He received a sentence of

seventeen years to life in prison. He alleges that he has exhausted these parole claims by

way of state habeas petitions. 

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). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

Case 4:07-cv-05014-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 3
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

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes

(quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). “Habeas petitions which

appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon

v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner challenges a denial of parole by the Board of Parole Hearings on February

9, 2006. As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) use of the

dismissed charges against him as grounds to deny parole violated his plea agreement; (2)

police reports about the offense to which petitioner pled guilty are not reliable, so the facts

contained in those reports, if not confirmed at the plea proceeding, cannot be “some

evidence” to support denial of parole; (3) failure to meet one of the suitability factors is not

enough to constitute “some evidence;” (4) the indeterminate sentencing law

unconstitutionally deprives him of his statutory right to good time; (5) there was not “some

evidence” that petitioner would be a danger to the public if released; (6) the Board’s use of

the circumstances of his crime to deny him parole violated due process; (7) application of

Proposition 89 to petitioner, who was convicted before its passage, violated his ex post

facto rights. 

These claims are sufficient to require a response. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d

910, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (repeated denial of parole based on unchanging characteristics

of offense might violates due process); McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 904 (9th

Cir. 2002) (due process requires that “some evidence” support parole denial). 

///

Case 4:07-cv-05014-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (document number 4 on the

docket) is DENIED as moot because petitioner has paid the filing fee.

2. 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. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within sixty 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 days of his receipt of the answer.

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of anwer. 

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 days of receipt of the

motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen

days of receipt of any opposition.

5. 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17 , 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\chavez014.osc.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-05014-PJH Document 6 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3