Swanigan v. Grounds
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 10/28/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
FRED SWANIGAN,
Petitioner,
12
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
13
14
No. C 11-4808 WHA (PR)
RANDY GROUNDS, et al.,
Respondent.
15
/
16
INTRODUCTION
17
Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
18
19
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The petition challenges the denial of parole by the
20
California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”).
ANALYSIS
21
22
A.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
23
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
24
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
25
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose
26
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
27
requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ
28
of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state
1
court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall
2
set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of
3
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not
4
sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of
5
constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d
6
688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).
7
B.
8
9
LEGAL CLAIMS
Petitioner claims that the denial of parole was not supported by sufficient evidence of
his current dangerousness. For purposes of federal habeas review, the federal constitutional
right to due process entitles a California only to “minimal” procedural protections in connection
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
with a parole suitability determination. Swarthout v Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 (2011). The
12
procedural protections are limited to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons
13
why parole was denied. Id. at 862. Petitioner does not dispute that he received an opportunity
14
to be heard and a statement of the reasons parole was denied. The constitution does not require
15
more. Ibid. The court in Swarthout explained that no Supreme Court case “supports converting
16
California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement.” Ibid. It is simply
17
irrelevant in federal habeas review "whether California's 'some evidence' rule of judicial review
18
(a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied." Id. at 863. As the
19
Supreme Court has determined that due process does not require that there be any amount of
20
evidence to support the parole denial, petitioner’s claim that the denial of parole was supported
21
by insufficient evidence fails to establish grounds for habeas relief.
22
CONCLUSION
23
In light of the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.
24
Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that a reasonable jurist would find this
25
//
26
//
27
28
2
1
court’s denial of his claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
2
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: October 28
, 2011.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.11\SWANIGAN4808.DSM.wpd
18
19
20
21
22
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?