Bowden v. Spearman et al

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 7/29/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2013)

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

EARL BOWDEN,
Petitioner,

13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

14
15

No. C 13-3216 WHA (PR)

M.E. SPEARMAN, et al.,
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

Governor of California.
ANALYSIS

22
23

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

B.

9

LEGAL CLAIMS
Petitioner claims that the Governor violated his constitutional right to due process by

reversing the decision of the California Board of Prison Terms to grant him parole based on the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

facts of his commitment offense. For purposes of federal habeas review, the federal

12

constitutional right to due process entitles a California only to “minimal” procedural protections

13

in connection with a parole suitability determination. Swarthout v Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863

14

(2011). The procedural protections are limited to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of

15

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

16

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

17

not require more. Ibid. Further, the court in Swarthout explained that no Supreme Court case

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Id. at 863. As the Supreme Court has determined that due process does not require anything

22

more than the protections afforded to petitioner, his petition must be denied.

23

//

24

//

25
26
27
28
2

1
2

CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. Petitioner has failed to make a

3

substantial showing that a reasonable jurist would find this court’s denial of his claim debatable

4

or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of

5

appealability is warranted in this case.

6

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
Dated: July

29

, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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
28
3