Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00058/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00058-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Parole Hearings
Respondent
Randy Grounds
Respondent
Byron Hibbert
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON HIBBERT,

Petitioner, 

 v.

RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-0058 WHA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Training Facility

in Soledad, California, 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) (venue

proper in both district of conviction and district of confinement).

STATEMENT

In 1993, a jury in Los Angeles County Superior Court convicted petitioner of attempted

murder and the use of a firearm. The trial court sentenced him to a term of life plus five years

in state prison. In 2008, the California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board) found petitioner

unsuitable for parole for a fourth time. Petitioner challenged this decision in unsuccessful

habeas petitions filed in all three levels of the California courts. 

//

Case 3:10-cv-00058-WHA Document 3 Filed 01/28/10 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

ANALYSIS

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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); Rose

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). 

B. LEGAL CLAIMS

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims that (1) the Board violated his

federal due process rights because there was not sufficient evidence that he would endanger

public safety if released; (2) the state courts applied the incorrect standard of review in

upholding the Board’s decision; and (3) no stay of the instant federal petition is warranted. 

Petitioner’s second claim does not state an independent grounds for relief, as errors in

the state post-conviction review process are not addressable through federal habeas corpus

proceedings. Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 939 (9th Cir. 1998). Whether state courts

unreasonably denied his due process claim in his state habeas corpus proceedings will be

addressed in connection with his first claim. Petitioner’s third claim also does not set forth a

grounds for habeas relief. Petitioner’s argument against a stay of this matter pending the

outcome of cases pending in the Ninth Circuit will be considered if respondent moves for a stay. 

Petitioner’s first claim, when liberally construed, is sufficient to require a response.

//

Case 3:10-cv-00058-WHA Document 3 Filed 01/28/10 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

CONCLUSION 

1. The second and third claims are DISMISSED. 

2. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the

respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The

clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety 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 the date the answer is filed.

4. Respondent may file, within ninety days, 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 the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a

reply within fifteen days of the date any opposition is filed.

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: January 28 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\HIBBERT0058.OSC.wpd 

Case 3:10-cv-00058-WHA Document 3 Filed 01/28/10 Page 3 of 3