Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04214/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ben Curry
Respondent
Gary B. Luther
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY B. LUTHER,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 07-4214 MHP (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

INTRODUCTION

Gary B. Luther, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this

pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is

now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Luther was convicted in Kern County Superior Court of second degree murder and

was sentenced in 1991 to a term of 15 years to life in prison plus 3 years. His petition does

not challenge his conviction but instead challenges a January 10, 2006 decision by the Board

of Parole Hearings ("BPH") to find him not suitable for parole. Luther alleges that he filed

habeas petitions in state courts, including the California Supreme Court, before filing this

action. 

DISCUSSION

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). 

Case 3:07-cv-04214-MHP Document 2 Filed 09/21/07 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

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

Luther alleges in his petition that the BPH's decision violated his right to due process

because it was not supported by some evidence. Although he has broken his argument into

multiple claims in his petition, they all concern the sufficiency of the evidence to support the

decision – e.g., he contends he has a protected liberty interest in parole, there is a

predetermined outcome of some evidence, there is improper reliance on the unchanging

factors, and there is improper application of other criteria for parole suitable. Liberally

construed, the allegations state a cognizable claim for a due process violation based on the

sufficiency of the evidence. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); Sass v.

California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Luther alleges that his right to equal protection of the laws has been violated. He

argues that he was treated differently from a foreign national who was transferred to custody

of the government of Sweden to serve a fixed term under a settlement agreement in a habeas

action. See Petition, pp. 22-25. He alleges that he is being treated differently because he

cannot be transferred to another country. The allegations do not state a claim for relief for an

equal protection violation. Luther has not alleged that all non-citizens are receiving fixed

terms, but only that one inmate with an indeterminate sentence who filed a habeas action

reached a settlement that allowed his transfer to his home country to serve a fixed term. The

petition and exhibits thereto plainly show that Luther is not similarly situated to the other

inmate he claims has received more favorable treatment: the most obvious difference is that

the other inmate had prevailed on his petition for writ of habeas corpus in state superior court

and the inmate was transferred to Sweden pursuant to a settlement agreement as a

Case 3:07-cv-04214-MHP Document 2 Filed 09/21/07 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

compromise of that habeas action. See Petition, Exh. H, pp. 1-2. The equal protection claim

is dismissed. 

Luther devoted much of his very long-winded petition arguing about California law. 

The federal writ of habeas corpus is only available for a violation of the Constitution, laws or

treaties of the United States. The state law claims are dismissed. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition's due process claim warrants a response from respondent. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before November 23,

2007, 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 issued. Respondent must

file with the answer a copy of all portions of the parole hearing record that have been

previously transcribed and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition.

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before December 28, 2007.

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He 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: September 20, 2007 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04214-MHP Document 2 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 3