Walker v. Grounds et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 11/2/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MICHAEL ANGELO WALKER,

11
12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
vs.
R. GROUNDS, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-4997 JSW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at the
California Training Facility, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 challenging a decision by the Board of Parole Hearings to deny him parole. This
order dismisses the petition for failing to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief.
DISCUSSION

Petitioner claims that the denial of parole violated his right to due process because
it was not supported by sufficient evidence. The United States Supreme Court has held
that a California prisoner is entitled to only “minimal” procedural protections in
connection with a parole suitability determination. Swarthout v Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859,
863 (2011). The procedural protections to which the prisoner is entitled under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are limited to an

1

opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. Id. at

2

862. The transcript of the parole hearing shows that Petitioner received an opportunity

3

to be heard and a statement of the reasons parole was denied. The Constitution does not

4

require more. Id. The Court in Swarthout explained that no Supreme Court case

5

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

6

requirement.” Id. It is simply irrelevant in federal habeas review "whether California's

7

'some evidence' rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution

8

demands) was correctly applied." Id. at 863. In light of the Supreme Court’s

9

determination that due process does not require that there be any amount of evidence to

10

support the parole denial, Petitioner’s claim that the Board’s decision was not supported

11

by sufficient evidence fails to state a viable basis for federal habeas relief.

12
13

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

14

Furthermore, Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that his claims

15

amounted to a denial of his constitutional rights and that a reasonable jurist would find

16

this Court's denial of his claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

17

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

18

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: November 2, 2011

21
22

JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

28

FOR THE

1

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4

MICHAEL ANGELO WALKER,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8

Case Number: CV11-04997 JSW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
RANDY GROUNDS et al,
Defendant.

/

9
10
11
12
13

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on November 2, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

14
15

17

Michael Angelo Walker
D91638
Correctional Training Facility
P.O. Box 689
Soledad, CA 93960

18

Dated: November 2, 2011

16

19

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3