Luis Mejia v. J T Ochoa

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Stephen V. Wilson for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 4 . IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted. 2. Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 3. The Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment on the parties. (bem)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS MEJIA,

12
13
14
15
16

Petitioner,
v.
J. T. OCHOA, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 11-4481 SVW (JCG)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

17
18

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the records

19 on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge,
20 and Petitioner’s Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of
21 those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Petitioner has
22 objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
23

Petitioner’s Objections essentially rehash the arguments made in the Petition

24 and are without merit for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
25 His claim that the Board of Parole Hearings’ adverse decision violated substantive
26 due process is foreclosed by Swarthout v. Cooke, in which the Supreme Court
27 explained that when a federal habeas court is reviewing a California parole
28

1 decision, “the only federal right at issue is procedural.” 131 S.Ct. 859, 862 (2011).
2 See also Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]here is no
3 substantive due process right created by California’s parole scheme. If the state
4 affords the procedural protections required by Greenholtz [v. Inmates of Nebraska
5 Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979)] and Cooke, that is the end of
6 the matter for purposes of the Due Process Clause.”). Petitioner does not contend
7 that he was denied the requisite procedural protections. Thus, because it is clear
8 from the Petition and attachments that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, summary
9 dismissal is appropriate. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C.
10 foll. § 2254.
11

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

12

1.

The Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted.

13

2.

Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.

14

3.

The Clerk serve copies of this Order and the Judgment on the parties.

15

Additionally, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the

16 Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
17 constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v.
18 Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Thus, the Court declines to issue a certificate
19 of appealability.
20
21
22 DATED: April 24, 2012
23

____________________________________

24

HON. STEPHEN V. WILSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2