Castelan v. Board of Parole Hearings et al
Filing
7
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/12/11 RECOMMENDING that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be summarily dismissed. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
VICTOR SOLORIO CASTELAN,
12
13
No. CIV S-10-3110-KJM-CMK-P
Petitioner,
vs.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14
BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
17
/
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of
18
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a denial of parole. Pending before the
19
court is petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Docs. 1).
20
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary
21
dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
22
exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the
23
instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
24
The United States Supreme Court has recently addressed the issues petitioner
25
raises in his petition. Reversing the holding of the Ninth Circuit in Hayward v. Marshall, 603
26
F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), the Court observed:
1
whatever liberty interest exists [in parole] is, of course, a state interest.
There is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally
released [on parole] before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the
States are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners. Id. at 7. When,
however, a State creates a liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires
fair procedures for its vindication – and federal courts will review the
application of those constitutionally required procedures. . . .
1
2
3
4
5
Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. ___, 2011 WL 197627, at *2 (Jan. 24, 2011) (per curiam) (citing
6
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979)) (emphasis
7
in original).
8
The Court held:
9
In the context of parole, we have held that the procedures required are
minimal. In Greenholtz, we found that a prisoner subject to a parole
statute similar to California’s received adequate process when he was
allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the
reasons why parole was denied. 442 U.S. at 16. “The Constitution,” we
held, “does not require more.” Ibid. Cooke and Clay received at least this
amount of process: They were allowed to speak at their parole hearings
and to contest the evidence against them, were afforded access to their
records in advance, and were notified as to the reasons why parole was
denied. (citations omitted).
That should have been the beginning and the end of the federal
habeas courts’ inquiry into whether Cook and Clay received due
process. . . .
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Id. at *2-3.
17
The Court added that “[n]o opinion of ours supports converting California’s
18
‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement” and “it is no federal concern . . .
19
whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the
20
Constitution demands) was correctly applied” because “a ‘mere error of state law’ is not a denial
21
of due process.” Id. at *3 (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 121, n.21 (1982)). Thus, in cases
22
challenging the denial of parole, the only issue subject to federal habeas review is whether the
23
inmate received the procedural due process protections of notice and an opportunity to be heard.
24
There is no other clearly established federal constitutional right in the context of parole.
25
///
26
///
2
1
Here, petitioner claims that the decision to deny him parole was not based on
2
“some evidence” and otherwise failed to satisfy substantive due process. Such a claim is
3
foreclosed as a matter of law because there is no clearly established federal constitutional
4
substantive due process right in parole. Petitioner does not raise any procedural due process
5
claims, such as the failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard. Thus, it plainly
6
appears that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
7
8
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition for
a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be summarily dismissed.
9
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
10
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
11
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
12
objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of
13
objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.
14
See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
15
16
17
18
DATED: September 12, 2011
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?