Ronald Glenn Hanes Jr. v. Charles Calahan

Filing 8

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Josephine L. Staton. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is Ordered that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition with prejudice. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendation) (sp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

RONALD GLENN HANES, JR.

) NO. ED CV 18-00309-JLS(E)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
)
CHARLES CALAHAN, WARDEN,
) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)

16
17
18

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable

19

Josephine L. Staton, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States

21

District Court for the Central District of California.

22
23

PROCEEDINGS

24
25

Petitioner filed a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a

26

Person in State Custody” on February 12, 2018.

27

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a decision of

28

the Governor of California deeming Petitioner unsuitable for parole

The Petition

1

and rejecting a contrary decision of the California Board of Prison

2

Terms.

3

Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.

4

Petition should be denied and dismissed with prejudice pursuant to

5

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

6

District Courts.

It plainly appears from the face of the Petition that
Therefore, the

7
BACKGROUND

8
9
10

In 1996, a jury found Petitioner guilty of second degree murder

11

and corporal punishment or injury to a child (Petition, p. 2 & Ex. A,

12

p. 1).

13

causing the child’s death (id.).

Petitioner had beaten his girlfriend’s three-year-old son,

14
15

After a hearing on December 6, 2016, a panel of the Board of

16

Prison Terms deemed Petitioner suitable for parole.

17

2007, the Governor issued a written order finding that, contrary to

18

the decision of the Board, the evidence as a whole showed that

19

Petitioner currently posed an unreasonable danger to society if

20

released from prison (Petition, Ex. A).

The Governor thus deemed

21

Petitioner unsuitable for parole (id.).

The state courts denied

22

Petitioner’s habeas corpus petitions challenging the Governor’s

23

decision (Petition, attached memorandum pp. 2-4 & Exs. F, G, H).

On March 24,

24
25

DISCUSSION

26
27
28

Federal habeas corpus relief may be granted “only on the ground
that [Petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or
2

1

laws or treaties of the United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also

2

Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (per curiam) (“it is only

3

noncompliance with federal law that renders a State’s criminal

4

judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the federal courts”)

5

(original emphasis).

6
7

“There is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted

8

person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid

9

sentence.”

Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional

10

Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979) (“Greenholtz”).

11

however, state statutes may create liberty interests in parole release

12

entitled to protection under the federal Due Process Clause.

13

of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 371 (1987); Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at

14

12.

15

governing parole create such a liberty interest.

16

Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 555 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), disapproved on

17

other grounds, Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011).1

In some instances,

See Bd.

The Ninth Circuit has held that California’s statutory provisions
See Hayward v.

18
19

“In the context of parole, . . . the procedures required are

20

minimal.”

21

that the State furnish a parole applicant with an opportunity to be

22

heard and a statement of reasons for a denial of parole.

Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220.

Due Process requires

Greenholtz,

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

In Swarthout v. Cooke, the Supreme Court did not reach
the question of whether California law creates a liberty interest
in parole, but observed that the Ninth Circuit’s affirmative
answer to this question “is a reasonable application of our
cases.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. at 219-20 (citations
omitted). The Ninth Circuit has held that Swarthout v. Cooke
“did not disturb our conclusion that California law creates a
liberty interest in parole.” Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042,
1045 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
3

1

442 U.S. at 16; see Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220 (citation

2

omitted).

3

U.S. at 16; accord Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220 (citation

4

omitted).

5

that Petitioner was denied these required procedural safeguards.

6

Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220; see also Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d

7

1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (Due Process Clause does not require

8

Governor to hold second parole hearing before reversing suitability

9

determination).

“The Constitution does not require more.”

Greenholtz, 442

Petitioner does not contend, and the record does not show,
See

10
11

In In re Lawrence, 44 Cal. 4th 1181, 1212, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 169,

12

190 P.3d 535 (2008), the California Supreme Court held, as a matter of

13

state law, that “some evidence” must exist to support a parole denial.

14

In Swarthout v. Cooke, however, the United States Supreme Court

15

rejected the contention that the federal Due Process Clause contains a

16

guarantee of evidentiary sufficiency with respect to a parole

17

determination.

18

ours supports converting California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a

19

substantive federal requirement.”).

20

bars Petitioner’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to

21

support the Governor’s decision.

22

questionable finding that there was no evidence in the record

23

supporting parole denial is irrelevant unless there is a federal right

24

at stake”) (emphasis original); Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191

25

(9th Cir. 2011) (“[Swarthout v. Cooke] makes clear that we cannot

26

consider whether ‘some evidence’ of dangerousness supported a denial

27

of parole on a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”); see also

28

Martinez v. Marshall, 508 Fed. App’x 614 (9th Cir. 2013) (Swarthout v.

Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220-22 (“No opinion of

Accordingly, Swarthout v. Cooke

See id. at 222 (“The Ninth Circuit’s

4

1

Cooke forecloses claim that Governor denied parole based on

2

insufficient evidence); Johnson v. Finn, 468 Fed. App’x 680, 683-84

3

(9th Cir. 2012) (same).

4

sufficiency of the evidence to support the Governor’s parole decision

5

fails to state a claim for federal habeas relief.

Thus, Petitioner’s challenge to the

6
7

Any claim that the Governor’s decision violated California law is

8

unavailing in this Court.

9

(“[T]he responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally adequate

See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. at 221

10

procedures governing California’s parole system are properly applied

11

rests with California courts, and is no part of the Ninth Circuit’s

12

business.”); see also Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d at 1046 (alleged

13

misapplication of California’s “some evidence” standard “does not

14

provide a basis for granting a federal writ of habeas corpus”)

15

(citations omitted); see generally Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. at 5;

16

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991).

17
RECOMMENDATION

18
19
20

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court

21

issue an order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
5

1

Recommendation; and (2) denying and dismissing the Petition with

2

prejudice.2

3
4

DATED: February 14, 2018.

5
6

/s/
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Because, as discussed herein, Petitioner’s sufficiency
challenge does not and cannot merit federal habeas relief, the
granting of leave to amend the Petition would be an idle act.
6

1
2

NOTICE
Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of

3

Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file

4

objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of

5

Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials

6

appear in the docket number.

7

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of

8

the judgment of the District Court.

No notice of appeal pursuant to the

9

If the District Judge enters judgment adverse to Petitioner, the

10

District Judge will, at the same time, issue or deny a certificate of

11

appealability.

12

and Recommendation, the parties may file written arguments regarding

13

whether a certificate of appealability should issue.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Within twenty (20) days of the filing of this Report