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
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?