Carr v. Hill

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/6/2014 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARION CARR, 12 No. 2:14-cv-1556 WBS CKD P Petitioner, 13 v. 14 R. HILL, 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 19 Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily 20 dismiss any petition if it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has 21 conducted this review. 22 In his petition, petitioner asserts that the decision to deny him parole in 2012 was either 23 based upon false evidence or simply not supported by the evidence. Petitioner has a liberty 24 interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Swarthout 25 v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 861-62 (2011). However, the procedural protections which must be 26 afforded with respect to the liberty interest implicated are minimal; the “Constitution does not 27 require more” than “an opportunity to be heard” at a parole hearing and that the potential parolee 28 be “provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Id. at 862. Petitioner has no 1 1 Constitutional right concerning the sufficiency of evidence upon which a denial of parole is 2 based. 3 Petitioner also claims he was denied parole in violation of California law. However, an 4 application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody under a judgment of a state court 5 can be granted only for violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States, not state law. 6 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 7 Petitioner asserts that the fact that his co-defendant, who actually committed the killing 8 for which petitioner was found guilty of conspiring to commit, has been paroled means the 9 Constitution demands that petitioner be paroled as well. However the Supreme Court has held 10 that the Constitution does not require that two persons who committed the same crime receive the 11 same sentence. Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 243 (1970). In any case, under California law, 12 whether or not a prisoner is paroled depends upon many factors, not simply a prisoner’s 13 commitment offense. Petitioner fails to show that when considering all the relevant factors, he 14 was an equal or better candidate for parole than his co-defendant. Furthermore, a single 15 demonstration of inequality is not enough to establish a violation of the Equal Protection Clause 16 of the Fourteenth Amendment. McQueary v. Blodgett, 924 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 Petitioner must show “systemic” discrimination, id., which he has not done. 18 19 Petitioner makes other claims in his petition, but they are essentially incomprehensible and not worthy of discussion.1 For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s 20 21 petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 25 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 26 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a 27 28 1 For example, petitioner suggests on page 45 his being denied parole somehow violates the Eighth Amendment, but does not provide a coherent explanation as to how. 2 1 certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 2 case. Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 3 right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 Dated: October 6, 2014 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 1 carr1556.dis 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?