Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chichil v. Kane


July 5, 2005


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Illston United States District Judge



Hilario Arturo Chichil, an inmate at the 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. He paid the filing fee.


Chichil was convicted in 1987 in Los Angeles County Superior Court of kidnapping for ransom with use of a firearm and sentenced to a term of life in prison with the possibility of parole plus eight years. His petition does not challenge his conviction but instead challenges a decision by the Board of Prison Terms ("BPT") at a September 2002 hearing that found him not suitable for parole. Chichil alleges that he filed habeas petitions in state courts, including the California Supreme Court, before filing this action.


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).

Chichil alleges that the BPT's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence, in violation of his right to due process. Liberally construed, the allegations state a cognizable claim for a due process violation. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); Morales. v. California Dep't of Corrections, 16 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 514 U.S. 499 (1995) (due process requires that "some evidence" must support the parole authority's decision); Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2003).


For the foregoing reasons,

1. The due process claim in the petition warrants a response from respondent.

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 September 16, 2005, 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 October 21, 2005.



© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.