Johnson v. Grounds

Filing 10

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge William Alsup granting 6 Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Petitioner,

12
13
14
15

No. C 10-3706 WHA (PR)

CHARLES VANCE JOHNSON,

ORDER GRANTING
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.
RANDY GROUNDS,

(Docket No. 6)

Respondent.
/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

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

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging the denial of parole by the California Board of Parole

20

Hearings (“Board”). Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failing to state a

21

valid claim for federal habeas relief. Petitioner has filed an opposition, and Respondent has

22

filed a reply brief. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.

23
24

STATEMENT
In 1985, petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder and assault with a deadly

25

weapon, and he was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years to life in state prison. In 2008, the

26

Board found petitioner unsuitable for parole. He challenged this decision without success in

27

habeas petitions filed in all three levels of the California courts.

28

1

ANALYSIS

was not supported by any evidence that he would be a danger to society if released. The United

4

States Supreme Court has recently held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

5

Amendment to the United States Constitution entitles a California prisoner to only “minimal”

6

procedural protections in connection with a parole suitability determination. Swarthout v

7

Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862 (2011). Specifically, the Due Process Clause only entitles a

8

California prisoner to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was

9

denied. Ibid. The record is clear that petitioner had an opportunity to be heard and the parole

10

hearing, and that the Board gave him a detailed statement of the reasons parole was denied (see

11
For the Northern District of California

Petitioner claims are that the denial of parole violated his right to due process because it

3

United States District Court

2

Pet. Ex. A). The Constitution does not require more. Ibid. No Supreme Court case “supports

12

converting California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement.” Ibid. As

13

it is clear from the record that petitioner received all of the procedural protections deemed

14

necessary by the Supreme Court to satisfy the federal constitutional requirement of due process,

15

petitioner’s claim challenging on due process grounds the sufficiency of the evidence

16

supporting the Board’s decision is without merit.

17

CONCLUSION

18

For the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion to dismiss (docket number 6) is

19

GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED. Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that a

20

reasonable jurist would find the grant of respondent’s motion to dismiss debatable or wrong.

21

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

22

warranted in this case.

23

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
Dated: December

9

, 2011.

26

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\JOHNSON3706.MTD.wpd

28
2