Alexander v. Chapell
Filing
5
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 10/30/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
RICKEY ALEXANDER,
12
Petitioner,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
13
14
No. C 13-4652 WHA (PR)
K. CHAPPEL,
(Docket No. 4)
Respondent.
15
/
16
INTRODUCTION
17
Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
18
19
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The petition challenges the denial of parole by the
20
California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”). He has applied for leave to proceed in forma
21
pauperis.
ANALYSIS
22
23
A.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
24
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
25
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
26
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose
27
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
28
requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ
1
of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state
2
court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall
3
set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of
4
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not
5
sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of
6
constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d
7
688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).
8
B.
9
LEGAL CLAIMS
Petitioner’s first two claims contend that he was denied due process because the Board’s
denial of parole was not supported by sufficient evidence of his current dangerousness. For
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
purposes of federal habeas review, the federal constitutional right to due process entitles a
12
California only to “minimal” procedural protections in connection with a parole suitability
13
determination. Swarthout v Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 (2011). The procedural protections are
14
limited to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. Id.
15
at 862. Petitioner does not dispute that he received an opportunity to be heard and a statement
16
of the reasons parole was denied. The constitution does not require more. Ibid. The court in
17
Swarthout explained that no Supreme Court case “supports converting California’s ‘some
18
evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement.” Ibid. It is simply irrelevant in federal
19
habeas review "whether California's 'some evidence' rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond
20
what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied." Id. at 863. As the Supreme Court has
21
determined that due process does not require that there be any amount of evidence to support
22
the parole denial, petitioner’s due process claims fail.
23
Petitioner also claims that the Board violated his rights under the Ex Post Facto Clause
24
by applying Proposition 9, the “Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law,” to him.
25
This issue is presently before Ninth Circuit in a pending case. Burnight v. Swarthout, Case No.
26
11-16062; see also Gilman v. Schwarzenegger, 638 F.3d 1101, 1105 (9th Cir. 2011).
27
Accordingly, it cannot be said that this claim is without merit, and an order to show cause will
28
issue on this claim.
2
1
CONCLUSION
2
1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the
3
respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The
4
clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner.
5
2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety-one days
of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
7
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be
8
granted based on the claims found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and
9
serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed
10
previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
6
If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the
12
court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight days of the date the answer is filed.
13
3. Respondent may file, within ninety-one days, a motion to dismiss on procedural
14
grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the
15
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file
16
with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within
17
twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and
18
serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is filed.
19
4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on
20
respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must
21
keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a
22
timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute
23
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772
24
(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).
25
5. The application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket number 4) is GRANTED.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
Dated: October
30
, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?