Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01691/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01691-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Noll
Respondent
Jackie Osby
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACKIE OSBY,

Petitioner,

v.

C. NOLL, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 10-1691 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Jackie Osby, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this pro se

action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before

the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

The petition provides the following information: Osby is serving a sentence of 15 years

to life on a 1991 conviction in Kern County Superior Court for second degree murder. His

petition does not challenge that conviction but instead challenges a September 3, 2008 decision

by the Board of Parole Hearings ("BPH") to find him not suitable for parole. Osby reports that

he filed unsuccessful habeas petitions in the state courts, including the California Supreme

Court, before filing this action. 

Case 3:10-cv-01691-SI Document 6 Filed 07/30/10 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

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). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 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).

Osby alleges in his petition that the BPH's decision violated his federal right to due

process because it was not supported by sufficient evidence. The federal due process claim is

cognizable and warrants a response.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition warrants a response. 

 2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the petition and all

attachments thereto upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State

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

3. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before October 1, 2010, 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 must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the parole hearing record that have been previously transcribed

and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before November 5, 2010. Petitioner's traverse

Case 3:10-cv-01691-SI Document 6 Filed 07/30/10 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

may not exceed 20 pages in length.

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He 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).

6. Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED as unnecessary because

he paid the filing fee. (Docket # 2, # 4.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 30, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01691-SI Document 6 Filed 07/30/10 Page 3 of 3