Riley v. Grounds

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING PETITION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Byron Dewayne Riley. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/14/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dtS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

BYRON DEWAYNE RILEY,
Petitioner,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12
13

No. C 10-2581 WHA (PR)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

v.
GROUNDS, Warden,
Respondent.
/

14
INTRODUCTION

15
16

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

17

challenging the denial of parole pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Respondent was ordered to show

18

cause why the writ should not be granted. Respondent filed an answer, and petitioner filed a

19

traverse. For the reasons discussed below, the petition is DENIED.
STATEMENT

20
21

In 1990, petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder in Los Angeles County

22

Superior Court, and he was sentenced to a term of eighteen years to life in state prison. In 2009,

23

the California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board) found petitioner unsuitable for parole.

24

Petitioner challenged this decision in unsuccessful habeas petitions filed in all three levels of the

25

California courts.

26
27
28

ANALYSIS
Petitioner’s remaining grounds for relief are three claims that are all premised upon the
contention that the denial of parole violated his right to due process because there was not

1

sufficient evidence that he would be a danger to society if released. The United States Supreme

2

Court has recently held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

3

States Constitution entitles a California prisoner to only “minimal” procedural protections in

4

connection with a parole suitability determination. Swarthout v Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862

5

(2011). Specifically, the Due Process Clause only entitles a California prisoner to an

6

opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. Ibid. The

7

transcript of the parole hearing indicates that he had an opportunity to be heard and was given a

8

statement of the reasons parole was denied (see Resp. Ex. 1). The Constitution does not require

9

more. Ibid. The court explained that no Supreme Court case “supports converting California’s
‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement.” Ibid. It is simply irrelevant in

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

federal habeas review "whether California's 'some evidence' rule of judicial review (a procedure

12

beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied." Id. at 863. In light of the

13

Supreme Court’s determination that due process does not require that there be any amount of

14

evidence to support the parole denial, petitioner’s claims challenging the sufficiency of the

15

evidence supporting the Board’s decision are without merit.

16

CONCLUSION

17

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing

18

Section 2254 Cases now requires a district court to rule on whether a petitioner is entitled to a

19

certificate of appealability in the same order in which the petition is denied. Petitioner has

20

failed to make a substantial showing that his claims amounted to a denial of his constitutional

21

rights or demonstrate that a reasonable jurist would find the denial of his claim debatable or

22

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of

23

appealability is warranted in this case.

24

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
Dated: November

14

, 2011.

27

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\RILEY2581.RUL.wpd

2