Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00951/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00951-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Kane
Respondent
Marco Rose
Petitioner

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

1

 Docket No. 1, February 13, 2006.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCO ROSE,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY KANE, Acting Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-0951 MJJ

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Marco Rose’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.1

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. At

Petitioner’s tenth parole hearing on March 23, 2005, Respondent Board of Parole Hearings (the

“BPH”) declared Petitioner unsuitable for parole. Petitioner alleges this was a denial of his liberty

interest in parole that is protected by due process. (Pet. at 5.) Accordingly, Petitioner seeks an order

from this Court directing Respondent BPH to modify its decision in Petitioner’s parole hearing to

reflect that he is suitable for parole, and to convene a hearing for the purpose of determining his

prison term and a parole date.

This Court may entertain a petition for a 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). 

The court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why

Case 3:06-cv-00951-MJJ Document 3 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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

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. 

For good cause shown, Respondent shall, by May 30, 2006, show cause why a writ of habeas

corpus should not be issued. If Petitioner wishes to respond, he shall do so within thirty days of his

receipt of the answer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March___, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00951-MJJ Document 3 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2