Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03610/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03610-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. P. Kane
Respondent
Eugene Alvin Reams
Petitioner
A. Schwarzenegger
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE ALVIN REAMS,

Petitioner, 

 v.

A. P. KANE, Warden; and A.

SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-3610 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, 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) (venue proper in both district of conviction and

district of confinement).

STATEMENT

In 1984, petitioner was convicted of kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. He was

sentenced to prison for seven years to life plus ten years. He alleges that he has exhausted these

parole claims by way of state habeas petitions. 

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-03610-WHA Document 2 Filed 07/23/07 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

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. Summary dismissal is

appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably

incredible, or patently frivolous or false. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.

1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that the denial of parole violated

his due process rights because there was no evidence to support it.

This claim is sufficient to require a response. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 916-

17 (9th Cir. 2003) (warning that repeated denial of parole based on unchanging characteristics

of offense might violate due process); McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 904 (9th Cir. 2002)

(due process requires that at least “some evidence” support parole denial). 

CONCLUSION 

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

respondents 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. 

2. 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

Case 3:07-cv-03610-WHA Document 2 Filed 07/23/07 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

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.

3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer,

as set forth in 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 days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the

court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of receipt of any opposition.

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

respondent by mailing a copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Papers intended to be

filed in this case should be addressed to the clerk rather than to the undersigned. Petitioner also

must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk

headed “Notice of Change of Address,” and comply with any orders of the court within the time

allowed, or ask for an extension of that time. 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: 7/22/07 . 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.07\REAMS610.OSC.wpd 

Case 3:07-cv-03610-WHA Document 2 Filed 07/23/07 Page 3 of 3