Brodis v. Hartley

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Regarding Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/18/12: Objections due 30 days after the date of service of this Findings and Recommendations. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
ANTOINE BRODIS,

1:12-CV-01587 LJO BAM HC

10
Petitioner,
11
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS

12
13

JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden,

14

Respondent.
___________________________________/

15
16
17
18

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On October 11, 2011, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

19

United States District Court for the Central District of California. On September 21, 2012, the

20

matter was transferred to the Eastern District of California and received in this Court. Petitioner

21

challenges the California court decisions upholding a January 28, 2009, decision of the California

22

Board of Parole Hearings.

23

On January 24, 2011, the Supreme Court decided Swarthout v. Cooke, ___ U.S.___, 131

24

S.Ct. 859, 2011 WL 197627 (Jan. 24, 2011). In Swarthout, the Supreme Court held that “the

25

responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s

26

parole system are properly applied rests with California courts, and is no part of the Ninth Circuit’s

27

business.” The federal habeas court’s inquiry into whether a prisoner denied parole received due

28

process is limited to determining whether the prisoner “was allowed an opportunity to be heard and

U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia

1

1

was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Id., citing, Greenholtz v. Inmates of

2

Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979). The transcript of the parole hearing

3

attached to the petition demonstrates that Petitioner was provided an opportunity to be heard and a

4

statement of reasons why parole was denied. (See Petition, Ex. A.) The transcript shows Petitioner

5

personally attended the hearing and participated in its entirety. He was provided the opportunity to

6

discuss the circumstances leading up to the crime, the circumstances surrounding the crime itself,

7

and the actions he had taken since commitment. The parole board discussed all relevant factors, both

8

positive and negative, and concluded that based on the evidence, Petitioner was unsuitable for parole.

9

According to the Supreme Court, this is “the beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’

10

inquiry into whether [the prisoner] received due process.” Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862. The instant

11

petition does not present cognizable claims for relief and must be dismissed.

12
13
14
15

RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus
be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill,

16

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and

17

Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

18

California. Within thirty (30) days after date of service of this Findings and Recommendation,

19

Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned

20

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Finding and

21

Recommendation will then be submitted to the District Court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s

22

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections

23

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v.

24

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

October 18, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia

2