Joseph Ramirez v. Ben Curry

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 3/11/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2011)

Joseph Ramirez v. Ben Curry

Doc. 6

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

*E-Filed 3/11/11*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOSEPH RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. BEN CURRY, Warden, Respondent. /

No. C 11-1081 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he alleges that the Board of Parole Hearings violated his right to due process when it denied him parole in July 2008. Petitioner specifically claims that the Board's decision fails to comport with due process because it was not supported by "some evidence" of current dangerousness, a requirement under California law. The petition fails to state a claim upon which federal habeas relief can be granted. "There is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners." Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U. S. 1, 7
No. C 11-1081 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

(1979). "When, however, a State creates a liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires fair procedures for its vindication -- and federal courts will review the application of those constitutionally required procedures." Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862 (2011). The procedures required are "minimal." Id. A prisoner received adequate process when "he was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why" parole was denied. Id. "The Constitution does not require more." Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16. Indeed, "it is no federal concern [ ] whether California's `some evidence' rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied." Cooke, 131 S.Ct. at 863. In the instant matter, the record shows that petitioner received at least the required amount of process. That the Board's decision may not have complied with California's "some evidence" rule is of no federal concern. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Reasonable jurists would not "find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Court of Appeals. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 11, 2011 RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge

2

No. C 11-1081 RS (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL