Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02402/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02402-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John L. Batie
Petitioner
Anthony Kane
Respondent
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Respondent

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN L. BATIE, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

ANTHONY KANE, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-2402 MMC (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Docket Nos. 2, 6, 7)

On May 3, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility, Soledad, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has applied for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

BACKGROUND

In 1981, petitioner was convicted, in San Diego County Superior Court, of second

degree murder with the personal use of a firearm, and sentenced to a term of 17 years to life

in state prison. In 2004, the California Board of Prison Hearings (“BPH”) found petitioner

suitable for parole, a decision that was reversed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in

2005. Petitioner challenged the Governor’s decision by habeas petitions filed in the San

Diego County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of

California. All three habeas petitions were denied. 

DISCUSSION

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

Case 3:07-cv-02402-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/13/07 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

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). A district court 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. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the

petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

Petitioner claims his right to due process was violated because the denial of parole

was not based on sufficient evidence. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claim is cognizable. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the

petition, along with all attachments thereto, upon respondent and respondent’s attorney, the

Attorney General for the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order

on petitioner.

 2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, within 90 days of

the date this order is filed, 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 based on petitioner’s cognizable claim. 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 30 days of the date the answer is filed.

3. In lieu of an answer, respondent may file, within 90 days of the date this order

is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, 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

Case 3:07-cv-02402-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/13/07 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

statement of non-opposition within 30 days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent

shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within 15 days of the date any

opposition is filed.

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. 

5. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondent 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).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will

be granted as long as they are filed on or before the deadline which they seek to extend.

7. In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, petitioner’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis is hereby GRANTED

This order terminates Docket Nos. 2, 6, and 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 13, 2007 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02402-MMC Document 9 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 3