(HC) Haynes v. Johnson

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 8/29/24 DENYING 6 petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days from the entry date of this order to file an amended petition. (Salmeron, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LELAND HAYNES,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.
TRACY JOHNSON,

Case No. 2:24-cv-00581-KJM-JDP (HC)
ORDER
DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND DIRECTING
PETITIONER TO FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Respondent.
ECF No. 6

16
17
18

On July 18, 2024, I found that the initial petition failed to state a cognizable claim and

19

gave petitioner leave to amend within thirty days. ECF No. 5. Specifically, I found that

20

petitioner’s claim that he was wrongfully denied parole failed to present a federal habeas claim.

21

Id. at 1-2. Rather than filing an amended petition, however, petitioner filed a motion for

22

reconsideration, ECF No. 6, arguing that my legal analysis is incorrect and that his petition does,

23

in fact, state a claim. For the reasons stated hereafter, I disagree and grant petitioner an additional

24

thirty days to file an amended petition.

25

In my screening order, I noted that, with respect to a denial of parole, federal law demands

26

only that a prisoner be afforded “an opportunity to be heard and [to be] provided a statement of

27

the reasons why parole was denied.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). Petitioner

28
1

1

did not allege that he was denied these procedural requirements, and, thus, I determined that he

2

failed to state a claim. In his motion for reconsideration, he argues that the state of California has

3

created a liberty interest in parole and that the Supreme Court has never held that a parole board

4

may, as he alleges here, invent evidence of dangerousness and violate the Eighth Amendment’s

5

prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. ECF No. 6 at 1-2. These arguments are

6

unpersuasive.

7

The state’s creation of a liberty interest in parole has limited effect on a federal habeas

8

court’s analysis. Where such an interest exists, federal law requires only that a petitioner be

9

provided fair procedures for its vindication. See Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220 (“When, however, a

10

State creates a liberty interest [in parole], the Due Process Clause requires fair procedures for its

11

vindication—and federal courts will review the application of those constitutionally required

12

procedures.”). Second, plaintiff’s contention that the parole board invented evidence of his

13

dangerousness lies outside the scope of federal habeas review. Id. at 221 (holding that a federal

14

habeas court should “not inquire into whether the constitutionally requisite procedures provided

15

by [the state] produced the result the evidence required . . .”). Finally, petitioner appears to argue

16

that his status as a youthful offender renders the denial of parole violative of the Eighth

17

Amendment. This contention finds no support in established federal law. To the contrary, “the

18

Supreme Court has never recognized an Eighth Amendment claim in the parole denial context.”

19

Morrison v. Madden, No. 5:22-cv-00925-MWF (MAA), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235240, *12

20

(C.D. Cal. July 27, 2023).

21

In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that:

22

1. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 6, is DENIED.

23

2. Out of an abundance of caution, I will still allow petitioner to file an amended petition.

24

He must do so within thirty days of this order’s entry. If he fails to do so, I will recommend that

25

this action be dismissed.

26
27
28
2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
Dated:

August 29, 2024

4

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3