Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01339/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01339-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felix P. Lucero
Plaintiff
R. K. Wong
Defendant

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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.10\Lucero01339_osc-parole.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIX P. LUCERO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

R. K. WONG, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-01339 JF (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, proceeding pro

se, seeks a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging

the 2009 decision of the Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) finding him unsuitable for

parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The Court orders Respondent to show cause

why the petition should not be granted. 

STATEMENT

According to the petition, sometime in the mid-1990s, Petitioner was sentenced to

eighteen years to life in state prison after a jury found him guilty of second degree murder

in San Joaquin County Superior Court. (Pet. 2.) Petitioner challenges the Board’s

decision denying him parole after a parole suitability hearing on June 11, 2009. Petitioner

Case 3:10-cv-01339-SI Document 5 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 4
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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.10\Lucero01339_osc-parole.wpd 2

filed habeas petitions in the state superior court, state appellate court, and the state

supreme court, all of which were denied as of March 10, 2010. Petitioner filed the instant

federal petition on March 30, 2010.

 

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

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner alleges that the Board violated his

right to due process when it denied parole “on incorrect and incomplete evidence and

evidence that did not provide a nexus to current dangerousness.” (Pet. Attach. at 1.) 

Petitioner’s second claim is that the hearing “under the provisions of Proposition 9

(Marcy’s Law) violated his due process rights and violated the expo [sic] facto clause of

the federal constitution. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims are cognizable under §

2254. The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition 

and all attachments thereto upon 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 the Petitioner. 

Case 3:10-cv-01339-SI Document 5 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 4
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

Order to Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.10\Lucero01339_osc-parole.wpd 3

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty 

(60) days of the date this order is filed, 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 parole 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 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 and all

parties 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: ________________________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

8/2/10

Case 3:10-cv-01339-SI Document 5 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FELIX P LUCERO,

Petitioner,

 v.

R. K. WONG, Warden, 

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV10-01339 JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Felix P. Lucero K35234

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

8/11/10

8/11/10

Case 3:10-cv-01339-SI Document 5 Filed 08/11/10 Page 4 of 4