Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01850/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01850-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. Curry
Respondent
Mark Savignano
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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK SAVIGNANO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-1850 PJH (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 also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 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).

BACKGROUND

In 1985 a jury convicted petitioner of second degree murder. He was sentenced to

fifteen years to life in prison. He alleges that he has exhausted these parole claims by way

of state habeas petitions. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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). It 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

Case 4:07-cv-01850-PJH Document 5 Filed 06/26/07 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

or person detained is not entitled thereto." Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

The petition is directed to a denial of parole on June 6, 2006. As grounds for federal

habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his due process and equal protection rights were

violated when he was not afforded individualized consideration of his case, but instead was

denied parole pursuant to a “no parole” policy; and (2) there was not “some evidence” to

support the denial. These claims are 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).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. In view of petitioner’s prisoner trust account balance and income, leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (document number 3 on the docket) is DENIED. Petitioner must

pay the five dollar ($5) filing fee within thirty days of the date of this order or the case will be

dismissed. 

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

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

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

3. 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 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.

4. 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

Case 4:07-cv-01850-PJH Document 5 Filed 06/26/07 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

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 fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

5. 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated June 26, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\SAVIGNANO850.OSC

Case 4:07-cv-01850-PJH Document 5 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 3