Miles v. Sherman

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/14/2016 recommending that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; Objections to F&R due by 1/20/2017. (Lundstrom, T).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JIMMY LEE MILES,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01762-JLT (HC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
SUMMARILY DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION
ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE
FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19

On November 21, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

20

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Petitioner challenges a parole suitability determination and the Court is

21

without jurisdiction to review the substantive due process of a parole suitability determination, the

22

Court will recommend the petition be DISMISSED.

23

I.

Preliminary Screening of the Petition

24

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

25

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.

26
27

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of

28

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss,
1

1

or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001). A

2

petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no

3

tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th

4

Cir. 1971). The Court will review the instant petition pursuant to its authority under Rule 4.

5

II.

6

Failure to State a Claim Cognizable Under Federal Habeas Corpus
On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

7

1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA imposes various requirements on all petitions for writ of habeas corpus

8

filed after the date of its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114

9

F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). The instant petition was filed on November 21, 2016, and

10
11

thus, it is subject to the provisions of the AEDPA.
Petitioner alleges that he is an inmate of the California Department of Corrections and

12

Rehabilitation who is serving a sentence of ten years-to-life imposed in the Fresno County Superior

13

Court after his 1986 conviction for kidnapping with great bodily injury and robbery with use of a

14

firearm. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Petitioner does not challenge either his conviction or sentence; rather, he

15

challenges the 2013 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) finding him

16

unsuitable for parole. He claims the seven year parole denial is disproportionate compared to other

17

inmates similarly situated. He further claims the factors relied on by the BPH were unsupported.

18

Petitioner’s claims concern the decision of the BPH. These claims are foreclosed by the

19

Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011). In Swarthout, the Supreme

20

Court held that the federal habeas court’s inquiry into whether a prisoner who has been denied parole

21

received due process is limited to determining whether the prisoner “was allowed an opportunity to be

22

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

23

Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979)). Petitioner does not contend

24

he was denied these procedural due process guarantees. According to the Supreme Court, this is “the

25

beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’ inquiry into whether [the prisoner] received due

26

process.” Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220. “‘The Constitution,’ [the Supreme Court] held, ‘does not

27

require more.’” Id., (quoting Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16). Therefore, Petitioner’s challenges to the

28

Board’s denial of parole fail to present cognizable federal claims for relief and the petition should be
2

1

dismissed.
ORDER

2
3
4

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District Judge to
this case.
RECOMMENDATION

5
6

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for writ of

7

habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which federal habeas relief

8

can be granted.

9

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

10

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

11

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

12

Within thirty days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the

13

Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

14

Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

15

636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

16

the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 14, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3