Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02921/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02921-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rosanne Campbell
Respondent
La Merle Ronnie Johnson
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

LAMERLE RONNIE JOHNSON, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2921 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at Mule

Creek State Prison in Ione, California, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the Board of Parole Hearings ("BPH") denial of parole during

parole suitability proceedings. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. This order directs

Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted of kidnap/ransom in San Mateo

County Superior Court and was sentenced in 1996 to life plus 11 years. In this habeas

action, Petitioner does not challenge his conviction, but instead challenges the execution

of his sentence. Petitioner contends that the denial of parole by the BPH during parole

suitability proceedings in 2006 violated his constitutional rights. He alleges that he has

exhausted state judicial remedies as to all of the claims raised in his federal petition.

Case 3:07-cv-02921-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 4
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

I 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 or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

II Legal Claims

Petitioner alleges that his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection

were violated by the parole denial by the BPH in 2006. Liberally construed, the

allegations are sufficient to warrant a response from Respondent. See Board of Pardons

v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123,

1125 (9th Cir. 2006); see, e.g., Morales. v. California Dep't of Corrections, 16 F.3d

1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 514 U.S. 499 (1995).

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. 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. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty (60)

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

Case 3:07-cv-02921-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 4
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

to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on

Respondent within thirty (30) 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 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 (30)

days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

Petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

4. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice

of Change of Address.” He 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: October 26, 2007 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02921-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/26/07 Page 3 of 4
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

LA MERLE RONNIE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROSANNE CAMPBELL et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-02921 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on October 26, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

 La Merle Ronnie Johnson

MCSP (C14-245L)

J-92682

P.O. 409060

Ione, CA 95640-9060

Dated: October 26, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-02921-JSW Document 4 Filed 10/26/07 Page 4 of 4