United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
L. ABRAMS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Angeles County Superior Court jury convicted petitioner of
three counts of lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under
the age of fourteen years, in violation of California Penal
Code section 288(a), three counts of forcible oral
copulation, in violation of California Penal Code section
288a(c), and one count of aggravated sexual assault (forcible
oral copulation) of a child under the age of fourteen and ten
or more years younger than himself, in violation of
California Penal Code section 269(a)(4). (Respondent's
Notice of Lodgment Nos. 1-2). He was sentenced to a total
term of fifteen years to life in state prison.
January 16, 2013, the California Board of Parole Hearings
conducted a hearing to determine if petitioner was suitable
for parole. (See Pet., Exh. A). Petitioner attended
the hearing and was represented by counsel. (See id.
at 304). Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to address
the presiding commissioner. (See, e.g., id.
the parole board found petitioner unsuitable for parole.
(Id. at 138). In doing so, the parole board informed
petitioner of the materials it had considered in reaching
that finding and explained to petitioner its reasons for
finding him unsuitable for parole. (Id. at 137-47).
exhausting his state court remedies with respect to the
parole board's decision, petitioner filed the instant
1. The parole board's finding that petitioner was not
suitable for parole violated his constitutional rights
because there was insufficient evidence to show that he
currently poses a danger to public safety. (Petition at 5(A),
2. Petitioner was deprived of his right to effective
assistance of counsel on appeal from his conviction because
his appellate counsel failed to raise several meritorious
arguments on appeal. (Id. at 5).
3. The parole board's decision to defer petitioner's
next parole suitability hearing for five years from the date
of his hearing violated his rights under the Ex Post Facto
Clause. (Id. at 5, 6(C)).
4. The parole board violated petitioner's right to due
process by denying him parole based, in part, on the
erroneous finding that he had inadequate parole plans.
(Id. at 6, 6(D)).
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court
to conduct a preliminary review of the Petition. Pursuant to
Rule 4, the Court must summarily dismiss a petition
"[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition .
. . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254
Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490
(9th Cir. 1990). Having conducted a preliminary review of the
Petition, the Court issues this Order To Show Cause directed
to petitioner ...