Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02345/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02345-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. P. Kane
Respondent
Lance Grant Van Hook
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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE GRANT VAN HOOK,

Petitioner,

 vs.

A. P. KANE, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2345 PJH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Center in Soledad, 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).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder in 1989. He received a

sentence of fifteen years to life, plus two years. In 2004 he was denied parole; it this

decision he challenges here. He alleges that he has exhausted these 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). 

Case 4:05-cv-02345-PJH Document 3 Filed 07/11/05 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

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

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) His due process

rights were violated in the denial of parole; (2) the BPT violated the Americans with

Disabilities Act in relying on his perceived status as a drug abuser to deny parole; and

(3) his due process rights were violated by the makeup of the board. These claims are

sufficient to require a response. 

CONCLUSION 

1. The clerk shall serve by regular 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 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.

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 days

of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a

Case 4:05-cv-02345-PJH Document 3 Filed 07/11/05 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

reply within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

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). 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 11, 2005.

 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.05\VANHOOK345.OSC

Case 4:05-cv-02345-PJH Document 3 Filed 07/11/05 Page 3 of 3