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)

Download PDF
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

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?