Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02601/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02601-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. P. Kane
Respondent
Luis A. Talamantes
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

LUIS A. TALAMANTES,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A. P. KANE, Warden, 

Respondent(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-2601 CRB (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the decision of the Governor of the

State of California to revoke a parole date granted him by the California Board of

Prison Terms ("BPT"). 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Los Angeles of second degree murder and, on

September 25, 1991, was sentenced to 15 years to life in state prison. 

Petitioner was found not suitable for parole the first time he appeared

before the BPT on March 26, 2002. At his second parole suitability hearing on

April 23, 2003, the BPT found him suitable for parole; however, then-governor

Gray Davis reversed the BPT's determination.

Case 3:06-cv-02601-CRB Document 2 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 3
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

On January 5, 2005, the BPT again found petitioner suitable for parole and

set a parole date; however, Governor Schwarzenegger reversed the BPT's parole

suitability determination and revoked the parole date.

Petitioner has unsuccessfully challenged the governor's decision in the

state courts. On March 22, 2006, the Supreme Court of California denied review

of his final petition for state habeas relief. 

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

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from the decision of the

Governor to revoke a parole date granted him by the BPT. Among other things,

petitioner claims that the Governor’s decision is not supported by the evidence. 

Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims appear colorable under § 2254 and merit

an answer from respondent. See McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 902-03

(9th Cir. 2002) (decision to rescind previously-granted parole release date

implicated prisoner’s liberty interest in release on parole which cannot be denied

without adequate procedural due process protections); see also Biggs v. Terhune,

334 F.3d 910, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2003) (refusal to set parole date for prisoner

implicated prisoner’s liberty interest in release on parole).

Case 3:06-cv-02601-CRB Document 2 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 3
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

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, 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

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 issued. 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. 

3. 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 30 days of his

receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Aug. 30, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02601-CRB Document 2 Filed 08/30/06 Page 3 of 3