Hicks v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. 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. Signed by Judge James Ware on 4/27/2010. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California GARY LEE HICKS, Petitioner, vs. R. GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 10-00822 JW (PR) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Petitioner, a California inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad proceeding pro se, seeks a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, challenging the 2008 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings (the "Board") finding petitioner unsuitable for parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. BACKGROUND According to the petition, petitioner was convicted by a jury in Monterey County Superior Court of second degree murder. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 15 years-to-life in state prison on 1983. On August 7, 2008, the Board found petitioner unsuitable for parole after his sixth parole consideration hearing. Petitioner challenged Order to Show Cause P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.10\Hicks00822_osc(parole).wpd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 the Board's decision by filing habeas petitions in the state courts. Petitioner has attached state court opinions of the superior and appellate courts to his petition, but it is unclear whether he exhausted his remedies with the state high court. Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on February 26, 2010. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review 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); 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. B. Petitioner's Claims Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief from the Board's August 7, 2008 decision finding him unsuitable for parole on the grounds there is no evidence to support the Board's decision. Liberally construed, petitioner's claim appears cognizable under 2254 and merits an answer from respondent. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 Order to Show Cause P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.10\Hicks00822_osc(parole).wpd 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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. 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. 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, 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 statement of non-opposition within thirty (30) days of receipt of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition. 4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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. DATED: April 27, 2010 JAMES WARE United States District Judge Order to Show Cause P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.10\Hicks00822_osc(parole).wpd 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GARY L. HICKS, Petitioner, v. R. GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent. / Case Number: CV10-00822 JW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 4/29/2010 , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the That on attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Gary Lee Hicks C-73540 CTF - Correctional Training Facility P. O. Box 689 Soledad, CA 93960 Dated: 4/29/2010 /s/ By: Richard W. Wieking, Clerk Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

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?