Ballard v. Hartley
Filing
9
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Summarily Dismissed with Prejudice for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/23/2011. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 6/27/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
MOAT BALLARD,
10
11
12
13
14
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
J. D. HARTLEY, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)
1:11-CV-00189 AWI GSA HC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
15
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
18
On February 3, 2011, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner
19
challenges the California court decisions upholding a July 27, 2009, decision of the California Board
20
of Parole Hearings. Petitioner claims the California courts unreasonably determined that there was
21
some evidence he posed a current risk of danger to the public if released.
22
A. Preliminary Review of Petition
23
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:
24
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk
to notify the petitioner.
25
26
The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of
27
habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to
28
dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
1
1
Cir.2001). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it
2
appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson,
3
440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
4
B. Failure to State a Cognizable Ground for Relief
5
In Swarthout v. Cooke, ___ U.S.___, 131 S.Ct. 859, 2011 WL 197627 (2011), the Supreme
6
Court stated that a federal habeas court’s inquiry into whether a prisoner denied parole received due
7
process is limited to determining whether the prisoner “was allowed an opportunity to be heard and
8
was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Id., at 862, citing, Greenholtz v.
9
Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979). Review of the instant case
10
reveals Petitioner was present at his parole hearing, was given an opportunity to be heard, and was
11
provided a statement of reasons for the parole board’s decision. (See Attachments to Petition.)
12
According to the Supreme Court, this is “the beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’
13
inquiry into whether [the prisoner] received due process.” Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862. “The
14
Constitution does not require more [process].” Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16. Therefore, the instant
15
petition does not present cognizable claims for relief, and no cognizable claim could be raised if
16
leave to amend were granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). The petition should
17
be dismissed.
18
19
20
21
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus
be SUMMARILY DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United
22
States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule
23
304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
24
25
Within thirty (30) days after date of service of this Findings and Recommendation, any party
26
may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should
27
be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the
28
Objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after date of service of the Objections.
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
2
1
The Finding and Recommendation will then be submitted to the District Court for review of the
2
Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure
3
to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District
4
Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated:
6i0kij
May 23, 2011
/s/ Gary S. Austin
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
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
3
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?