Edwards v. Grounds

Filing 5

ORDER by Judge William Alsup granting 4 Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dtS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2011)

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 10-4881 WHA (PR)

CORNELIUS EDWARDS,

ORDER GRANTING
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.
RANDY GROUNDS,

(Docket No. 4)

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 not filed an opposition. For the reasons

22

discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.

23

STATEMENT

24

In 1987, petitioner pled guilty to one count of second-degree murder, and he was

25

sentenced to a term of fifteen years to life in state prison. In 2009, the Board found petitioner

26

suitable for parole. The Governor if California reversed the Board’s decision and denied parole.

27

In 2010, petitioner successfully challenged the Governor’s decision in a habeas petition filed in

28

the state superior court. However, the California Court of Appeal reversed the superior court’s

1

decision on appeal. Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court,

2

which was denied.

3
4

ANALYSIS
Petitioner’s two remaining claims are that the denial of parole violated his right to due

5

process because it was not supported by sufficient evidence and because he did not receive

6

individualized consideration of whether he would be a danger to society if released. The United

7

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

8

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

9

procedural protections in connection with a parole suitability determination. Swarthout v
Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862 (2011). Specifically, the Due Process Clause only entitles a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

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

13

hearing, and that the Governor gave him a detailed statement of the reasons parole was denied

14

(see Pet. Exs. A-C). The Constitution does not require more. Ibid. The court explained that no

15

Supreme Court case “supports converting California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive

16

federal requirement.” Ibid. As it is clear from the record that petitioner received all of the

17

procedural protections deemed necessary by the Supreme Court to satisfy the federal

18

constitutional requirement of due process, petitioner’s claims challenging on due process

19

grounds the sufficiency of the evidence and the Governor’s consideration of petitioner’s

20

individual factors are without merit.

21

CONCLUSION

22

For the foregoing reasons, respondent’s motion to dismiss (docket number 4) is

23
24

GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED.
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires a district court to

25

rule on whether a petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the same order in

26

which the petition is dismissed. Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that a

27

reasonable jurist would find this court’s denial of his claim debatable or wrong. Slack v.

28
2

1

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

2

in this case.

3

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: November

14

, 2011.

7

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\EDWARDS4881.MTD.wpd

23
24
25
26
27
28
3