Bodine v. Grounds et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/27/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

HARRY BODINE,
Petitioner,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 11-2122 WHA (PR)

RANDY GROUNDS,
Respondent.

13

/
14
INTRODUCTION

15

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

16
17

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The petition challenges the denial of parole by the

18

California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”).
ANALYSIS

19
20

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

21

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

22

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

23

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose

24

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading

25

requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

26

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state

27

court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall

28

set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of

1

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not

2

sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of

3

constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d

4

688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

5

B.

6

LEGAL CLAIMS
Petitioner claims that the Board violated his protected liberty interest in parole because

that he would be suitable for parole. For purposes of federal habeas review, a California

9

prisoner is entitled to only “minimal” procedural protections in connection with a parole

10

suitability determination. Swarthout v Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 (2011). The procedural

11
For the Northern District of California

the evidence warranted a finding that he would not pose a danger to the public if released and

8

United States District Court

7

protections to which the prisoner is entitled under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

12

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are limited to an opportunity to be heard and a statement

13

of the reasons why parole was denied. Id. at 862. Petitioner does not dispute that he received

14

an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons parole was denied. The constitution

15

does not require more. Ibid. The court in Swarthout explained that no Supreme Court case

16

“supports converting California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement.”

17

Ibid. It is simply irrelevant in federal habeas review "whether California's 'some evidence' rule

18

of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied."

19

Id. at 863. In light of the Supreme Court’s determination that due process does not require that

20

there be any amount of evidence to support the parole denial, petitioner’s claim fails to state a

21

cognizable basis for federal habeas relief.

22

CONCLUSION

23

In light of the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.

24

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 which

26

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

27

//

28

//
2

1

jurist would find this court’s denial of his claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529

2

U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case.

3

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
Dated: May

27

, 2011.

6

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
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
23
24
25
26
27
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.11\BODINE2122.DSM.wpd

28
3