Mejia v. Spearman
Filing
3
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 11/10/2014. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 8/11/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2014)
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
JIMMY G. MEJIA,
Petitioner,
12
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
13
14
No. C 14-3304 WHA (PR)
M.E. SPEARMAN,
(Docket No. 2)
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”) in 2013. He has applied for leave to proceed in
21
forma 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 alleges that he had a parole hearing in 2013 at which the Board found him
unsuitable for parole. He claims that the Board’s decision violates his rights to due process and
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
equal protection because the decision was “predetermined,” i.e. the Board made its decision
12
before the hearing. For purposes of federal habeas review, the federal constitutional right to
13
due process entitles a California only to “minimal” procedural protections in connection with a
14
parole suitability determination. Swarthout v Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 (2011). The
15
procedural protections are limited to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons
16
why parole was denied. Id. at 862. Because Petitioner’s claim, when liberally construed, could
17
amount to an assertion that by making its decision before the hearing, the Board denied him an
18
opportunity to be heard, it cannot be said at this stage that this claim is without merit, and
19
Respondent will be ordered to answer the claim.
20
CONCLUSION
21
1. The clerk shall mail a copy of this order and the petition with all attachments to the
22
respondent and the respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of California. The
23
clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the petitioner.
24
2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety-one days
25
of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
26
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be
27
granted based on the claim found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and
28
serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed
2
1
2
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
3
court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight days of the date the answer is filed.
4
3. Respondent may file, within ninety-one days, a motion to dismiss on procedural
5
grounds in lieu of an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the
6
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner shall file
7
with the court and serve on respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within
8
twenty-eight days of the date the motion is filed, and respondent shall file with the court and
9
serve on petitioner a reply within fourteen days of the date any opposition is filed.
4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must
12
keep the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a
13
timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute
14
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772
15
(5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).
16
5. The application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket number 2) is GRANTED.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated: August
11
, 2014.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?