Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01700/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01700-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ramiro Gomez
Petitioner
A. Kane
Respondent

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

RAMIRO GOMEZ, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

A. KANE, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-1700 JSW (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

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

Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California, 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. 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 second degree murder in

Los Angeles County Superior Court in 1988 and was sentenced to an indeterminate term

of fifteen 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 during his fourth parole suitability hearing in 2004

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

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

Case 3:05-cv-01700-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/10/06 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

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 Clerk 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. 

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

Case 3:05-cv-01700-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/10/06 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

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: 1/10/06 

 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01700-JSW Document 4 Filed 01/10/06 Page 3 of 3