Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00814/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00814-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ben Curry
Respondent
Willie E. Tatum
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

WILLIE E. TATUM,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-814 TEH (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Petitioner, a California state inmate at Soledad State Prison, has filed a pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the

September 15, 2005, decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) to

deny him parole. 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 and the attachments thereto, Petitioner was convicted in

Los Angeles County Superior Court in 1982 of two counts of kidnapping and robbery

with the use of a deadly weapon and was sentenced to a term of seven years-to-life. 

Petitioner challenges the BPH’s decision finding him unsuitable for parole after his

twelfth parole consideration hearing on September 15, 2005. According to the petition,

on June 29, 2006, Petitioner filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Los

Angeles County Superior Court, which denied the petition on April 10, 2007. Pet. Ex. D. 

On July 17, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of

Case 3:08-cv-00814-TEH Document 3 Filed 07/02/08 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

Appeal, which denied relief. Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California

Supreme Court, which denied review on December 12, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from the BPH’s decision finding him

not suitable for parole on the following grounds: 1) there was not some evidence in the

record showing that Petitioner is a current threat and danger to society; 2) Petitioner

invoked his right not to discuss the commitment offense and his refusal to discuss the

offense was improperly held against him; 3) Petitioner had minimal criminal history and

no prior convictions; 4) the record does not support the BPH’s conclusion that Petitioner

has not participated in self-help programming; 5) the record does not support the finding

that Petitioner was uncooperative and combative at the hearing, leading to Petitioner’s

removal from the hearing. Liberally construed, Petitioner’s claims appear colorable under

§ 2254 and merit an answer from Respondent. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914-

15 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that initial refusal to set parole date for prisoner with fifteento-life sentence implicated prisoner’s liberty interest in release on parole which cannot be

denied without adequate procedural due process protections).

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-00814-TEH Document 3 Filed 07/02/08 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 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 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 thirty (30) days of his

receipt of the answer. 

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 also keep the Court and all parties informed of any change of address. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 07/01/08 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00814-TEH Document 3 Filed 07/02/08 Page 3 of 3