Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02218/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Bird
Petitioner
Terry Gonzalez
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

MICHAEL BIRD,

Petitioner, 

 v.

TERRY GONZALEZ, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-2218 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

DENYING APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

(Docket No. 5) 

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony in

San Luis Obispo, California, 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 1981, petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder with the use of a firearm in

Alameda County Superior Court, and he was sentenced to a term of twenty-six years to life in

state prison. In 2007, the California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board) found petitioner

unsuitable for parole for a second time. Petitioner challenged this decision in unsuccessful

habeas petitions filed in all three levels of the California courts. 

//

Case 3:10-cv-02218-WHA Document 6 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 4
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

ANALYSIS

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 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 Section 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). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) the parole hearing

violated his right to due process because the District Attorney was allowed to ask him

questions, and because the District Attorney’s opposition to petitioner’s release does not

amount to “some evidence” supporting the denial of parole; (2) there was not “some evidence”

to support the denial of parole because there was no evidence of petitioner’s current

dangerousness; (3) the denial of parole was bases on the unchanging facts of the commitment

offense, in violation of due process; (4) the use of his commitment offense to deny parole has

converted his sentence to life without the possibility of parole, in violation of due process; (5)

the conversion of his sentence to life without the possibility of parole, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment; (6) the conversion of his sentence to life without the possibility of parole, in

violation of his plea agreement; (7) by denying parole, the Board extended his sentence, in

violation of his right to a jury; and (8) the conversion of his sentence to life without the

possibility of parole, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Case 3:10-cv-02218-WHA Document 6 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 4
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

Petitioner’s first three claims, when liberally construed, are all premised upon a single

cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, namely that the Board’s denial of parole violated his

federal constitutional right to due process because it was not based on at least “some evidence”

of his current dangerousness. Indeed, petitioner makes this argument throughout his entire

petition. Consequently, the arguments set forth in claims one through three may be addressed

by the parties jointly in the briefing ordered below. 

Petitioner’s fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth claims are not cognizable. These

claims are premised upon the contention that the Board’s denial of parole has changed his

sentence to one of life with the possibility of parole to a sentence of life without the possibility

of parole. While petitioner was denied parole in 2007, he will continue to be eligible for parole

in the future, which would not be the case if he was in prison for life without the possibility of

parole. Petitioner argues that because the Board relied upon the unchanging facts of his

commitment offense to deny parole, he will never be released. To begin with, is clear from his

petition that the Board did not rely solely upon his commitment offense in finding him

unsuitable for parole. Moreover, the Board may rely less upon the commitment offense at

future hearings, particularly after petitioner has served more than his suggested base term of

twenty-six years. As petitioner’s sentence has not been changed by the Board’s decision, his

fourth through eighth claims, even when liberally construed, do not set forth a cognizable basis

for federal habeas relief and are DISMISSED.

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 the petitioner. 

2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety 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 claim found cognizable herein. 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

Case 3:10-cv-02218-WHA Document 6 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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 the date the answer is filed.

3. Respondent may file, within ninety 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 thirty days

of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a

reply within fifteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

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). 

5. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as no evidentiary hearing

is warranted and this case is not particularly complex. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\BIRD2218.OSC.wpd 

Case 3:10-cv-02218-WHA Document 6 Filed 06/25/10 Page 4 of 4