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)

Download PDF
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?