Lee v. Grounds

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 4/21/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ALEJANDRO M. LEE, H-91709,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

vs.
R. GROUNDS, Warden,
Respondent(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-1244 CRB (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
(Docket # 4)

15
16

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

17

challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings' (BPH) September 29, 2009

18

decision to deny him parole. In a nutshell, petitioner claims that the BPH's

19

decision does not comport with due process because it is not supported by some

20

evidence demonstrating that he poses a current unreasonable threat to the public.

21
22
23

Petitioner also seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (docket # 4), which
based solely on his affidavit of poverty, is granted.
In the context of parole, a prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to

24

California's receives adequate process when he is allowed an opportunity to be

25

heard and is provided with a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.

26

Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011). The attachments to the petition

27

show petitioner received at least this amount of process. The Constitution does

28

not require more. Id.

1

Whether the BHP's decision was supported by some evidence of current

2

dangerousness is irrelevant in federal habeas. The Supreme Court has made clear

3

that "it is no federal concern . . . whether California's 'some evidence' rule of

4

judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was

5

correctly applied." Id. at 863.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

6
7

DISMISSED. And pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

8

Cases, a certificate of appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED

9

because it cannot be said that "reasonable jurists would find the district court's

10

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel,

11

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close the

12
13

file.

14

SO ORDERED.

15

DATED:

April 21, 2011
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.11\Lee, A1.dismissal.wpd

27
28

2