Dawson v. Grounds
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 7/2/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
DARRYL DAWSON,
Petitioner,
13
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
14
15
No. C 12-3011 WHA (PR)
R.J. GROUNDS,
Respondent.
16
/
17
INTRODUCTION
18
Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
19
20
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The petition challenges the denial of parole by the
21
California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”). He has applied for leave to proceed in forma
22
pauperis.
ANALYSIS
23
24
A.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
25
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
26
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
27
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose
28
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
1
requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ
2
of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state
3
court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall
4
set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of
5
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not
6
sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of
7
constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d
8
688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).
9
B.
LEGAL CLAIMS
Petitioner claims that he denied his constitutional right to due process because the Board
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
did not conduct a fair hearing, did not provide individualized consideration to petitioner’s case,
12
and denied parole based on insufficient and unreliable evidence of petitioner’s potential
13
dangerousness if released. For purposes of federal habeas review, the federal constitutional
14
right to due process entitles a California only to “minimal” procedural protections in connection
15
with a parole suitability determination. Swarthout v Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 (2011). The
16
procedural protections are limited to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons
17
why parole was denied. Id. at 862. Petitioner does not dispute that he received an opportunity
18
to be heard and a statement of the reasons parole was denied. The constitution does not require
19
more. Ibid. Further, the court in Swarthout explained that no Supreme Court case “supports
20
converting California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement.” Ibid. It is
21
simply irrelevant in federal habeas review "whether California's 'some evidence' rule of judicial
22
review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied." Id. at 863.
23
As the Supreme Court has determined that due process does not require anything more than the
24
protections afforded to petitioner, his due process claims fail.
25
CONCLUSION
26
In light of the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.
27
Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that a reasonable jurist would find this
28
court’s denial of his claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
2
1
Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case.
2
The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: July
2
, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.12\DAWSON3011.DSM.wpd
17
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?