Li v. Sisto, et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. on 11/19/2012. Applicant's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. This action is TERMINATED. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
Eastern District of California

10
11
12
13

JIAN LI,

14
15
16

09-CV-00139 TJH
Petitioner,

v.
DENNIS KRIS SISTO, et al.,

17

Order

Respondents.

18
19
20

Petitioner was convicted of attempted first degree murder, and is serving a seven

21

year-to-life sentence. The Board of Prison Terms (“BPT”) denied Petitioner parole in

22

2006. The trial court, appellate court, and state supreme court denied Petitioner’s habeas

23

petitions.

24

Petitioner raises two claims in this petition for habeas relief. First, Petitioner

25

asserts that the BPT’s reliance on Petitioner’s commitment offense to deny Petitioner

26

parole violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Second, Petitioner asserts that the

27

trial court erroneously applied a minimally necessary standard instead of the some-

28

evidence standard.
Order – Page 1 of 3

1

The petition is governed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

2

(“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326, 117 S. Ct. 2059,

3

2063, 138 L. Ed. 2d 481, 488 (1997). Under the AEDPA, a federal court may not grant

4

a writ of habeas corpus unless the state court’s adjudication was either: 1) Contrary to,

5

or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

6

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 2) Based on an unreasonable

7

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at the State Court

8

proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1-2). Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled

9

to relief under this standard.

10

Petitioner’s first claim fails. There is no clearly established United States Supreme

11

Court precedent that precludes the BPT from relying on the commitment offense when

12

considering suitability for parole. The only clearly established federal law setting forth

13

the process due in the parole context is Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr.

14

Complex. 442 U.S. 1, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1979). Greenholtz holds that

15

an opportunity to be heard and a statement of reasons why the inmate did not qualify for

16

parole are sufficient to protect against an arbitrary state parole decision. Greenholtz, 442

17

U.S. at 16. Petitioner does not argue that he did not receive the Greenholtz protections.

18

Petitioner’s second claim fails. The Supreme Court specifically rejected the

19

argument that parole decisions are to be reviewed for evidentiary sufficiency in

20

Greenholtz. 442 U.S. at 15. A parole authority is not required to cite evidence to support

21

its decision. Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16.

22

The “some-evidence” test that Petitioner argues controls was developed in the

23

context of a prison disciplinary hearing, Superintendent, Massachusetts Corr. Inst.,

24

Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457, 105 S. Ct. 2768, 2775, 86 L. Ed. 2d 356, 366 (1985),

25

which, as the Supreme Court has recognized, is a fundamentally different context than

26

a parole proceeding. See Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 15-16. Because the tests and standards

27

developed by the Supreme Court in one context cannot be transferred to a distinguishable

28

context for AEDPA purposes, it is not appropriate to apply the some-evidence standard
Order – Page 2 of 3

1

of judicial review to parole decisions.

2
3

It is Ordered that the petition be, and hereby is, Denied.

4
5

Date: November 19, 2012

6

___________________________________

7

Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

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

Order – Page 3 of 3