Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03427/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03427-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A.P. Kane
Defendant
Savorn Sey
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

SAVORN SEY, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

Warden A.P. KANE, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3427 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket no. 3) 

INTRODUCTION

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

Correctional Training Facility at Soledad, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the Board of Prison Terms ("BPT") denial of parole during

parole suitability proceedings. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This

order grants Petitioner's in forma pauperis application and directs Respondent to show

cause why the petition should not be granted.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder in 1993

in San Diego County Superior Court and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of

twenty years-to-life in state prison. 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 BPT at his August 24, 2004, initial parole suitability

hearing violated his federal constitutional right to due process. He alleges that he has

Case 3:05-cv-03427-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/26/06 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

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

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 were violated by the parole denial

by the BPT in 2004. Liberally construed, the allegations are sufficient to warrant a

response from Respondent. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); 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 application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED (docket no. 3).

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve 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 (60)

days from the date 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

Case 3:05-cv-03427-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/26/06 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

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 (30) 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

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.

5. 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: January 26, 2006

 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03427-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 3