Garbutt v. Carey et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 8/25/10: A certificate of appealability is GRANTED on the issue of whether the Board of Prison Terms denied petitioner due process in finding "some evidence of current dangerousness". (Kaminski, H).

Download PDF
(HC) Garbutt v. Carey et al Doc. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. THOMAS L. CAREY, et al. Respondents. / On May 17, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded this case for the district court to determine whether it should issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c). Having reviewed the record and relevant case law, the court finds that petitioner has made a substantial showing that his constitutional right to due process may have been denied by the Board of Prison Terms' finding of "some evidence of current dangerousness" in the circumstances of the commitment offense and its finding that petitioner has "minimized" his involvement in and culpability for the crime. The court makes this determination in light of the ruling in Cooke v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2010) and its apparent incorporation of In re Lawrence, 44 Cal. 4th 1181 (2008), as defining "the scope of the federally enforceable liberty interest created by California's `some evidence' requirement[.]" Cooke, 606 F.3d at 1214. 1 Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DENNIS GARBUTT Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2130 GEB KJM P ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is GRANTED on the issue of whether the Board of Prison Terms denied petitioner due process in finding "some evidence of current dangerousness." Dated: August 25, 2010

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?