Vondell Lewis v. Randy Grounds

Filing 8

ORDER Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/04/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2011)

Download PDF
Vondell Lewis v. Randy Grounds Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in which he claimed that a decision by the Board of Parole Hearings to find him not suitable for parole violated his right to due process because it was not supported by sufficient evidence. Doc. #1. Respondent has filed an Doc. ## 6 & 7. v. RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent. / VONDELL LEWIS, Petitioner, No. C-10-1621 TEH (PR) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA answer and Petitioner has filed a traverse. The United States Supreme Court recently made clear that in the context of a federal habeas challenge to the denial of parole, a prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to California's receives adequate process when BPH allows him an opportunity to be heard and provides him with a statement of the Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reasons why parole was denied. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 86263 (2011) (per curiam). Here, the record shows Petitioner received at least this amount of process. require more. Swarthout, 131 S.Ct at 862. The Constitution does not The Court also made clear that whether BPH's decision was supported by some evidence of current dangerousness is irrelevant in federal habeas: "it is no federal concern . . . whether California's `some evidence' rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied." Swarthout, 131 S.Ct at 863. Accordingly, the instant federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Further, a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). Nor has Petitioner See Petitioner demonstrated that "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may not appeal the denial of a Certificate of Appealability in this Court but may seek a certificate from the Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. // // // // // 2 See Rule 11(a) of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions as moot, enter judgment in favor of Respondent and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. 03/04/2011 THELTON E. HENDERSON United States District Judge G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.10\Lewis-10-1621-bph-deny-post cooke.wpd 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?