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)
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?