Walker v. Grounds
Filing
9
ORDER GRANTING 5 MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/12/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2011)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
GREGORY A. WALKER,
No. C 10-02234 CW (PR)
4
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
Petitioner,
5
v.
6
7
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,
8
Respondent.
/
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed this pro se petition
11
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
12
challenging as a violation of his constitutional rights the denial
13
of parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings (Board) on
14
July 8, 2008.
15
16
In an Order dated June 24, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent
to show cause why the petition should not be granted.
17
On August 30, 2010, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the
18
petition.
19
Respondent filed a reply.
20
Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion and
For the reasons discussed below, Respondent's motion will be
21
granted.
22
A.
23
Petitioner's Claim
A federal district court may entertain a petition for a writ
24
of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
25
judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody
26
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
27
States.”
28
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
1
In his petition, Petitioner states he was denied parole on
2
July 8, 2008, and that the reasons for the denial were "the nature
3
of the commitment offense; the psychological report; institutional
4
behavior, and that parole plans were unrealistic."
5
Attached Page Claim One.)
6
federal habeas corpus relief on the following grounds:
(Pet. at
He then argues that he is entitled to
7
Under the State and Federal Constitutions, Petitioner has
a right to due process of law in parole matters. Here,
the Board failed to explicitly state the nexus between
the cited factor or factors and the ultimate decision of
current dangerousness. The Board fails to meet its
affirmative obligation and due process rights/duties
applicable to the conduct of the hearing. As a matter of
California Law, the Board must articulate a rational
nexus between its factual findings and conclusions.
Thereby, the nexus test must be affirmatively applied and
articulated by the Board in the first instance.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
Id.
14
Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on three alternative
15
grounds: the petition does not meet the pleading requirements of
16
Rules 2 and 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases because
17
Petitioner fails to specify the grounds for relief and to plead his
18
claims with particularity; the petition fails to state a federal
19
claim for habeas relief; and the petition is unexhausted because
20
Petitioner did not present his federal constitutional claim to the
21
California Supreme Court.
22
In his opposition, Petitioner responds that the petition
23
should proceed because he has alleged the same operative facts as
24
in his state petition, the facts show there was not "some evidence"
25
to support the denial of parole, and Ninth Circuit law requires
26
that habeas relief be granted under such circumstances.
27
28
2
1
Federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable for an error of
2
state law.
3
(2011).
4
a liberty or property interest that is entitled to the protections
5
of federal due process.
6
constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be
7
conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence,”
8
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S.
9
1, 7 (1979), a state’s statutory parole scheme, if it uses
Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 861 (per curiam)
Under certain circumstances, however, state law may create
In particular, while there is “no
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
mandatory language, may create a presumption that parole release
11
will be granted when, or unless, certain designated findings are
12
made, and thereby give rise to a constitutionally protected liberty
13
interest.
14
California law creates such a liberty interest in release on
15
parole.
16
See id. at 11-12.
The Ninth Circuit has determined
Cooke, 131 S. Ct. at 861-62.
When a state creates a liberty interest, the Due Process
17
Clause requires fair procedures for its vindication, and federal
18
courts will review the application of those constitutionally
19
required procedures.
20
procedures necessary to vindicate such an interest are minimal: a
21
prisoner receives adequate process when “he [is] allowed an
22
opportunity to be heard and [is] provided a statement of the
23
reasons why parole was denied.”
24
that the Constitution does not require more.
25
Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Cooke was unequivocal
26
in holding that if an inmate seeking parole receives an opportunity
27
to be heard, a notification of the reasons as to denial of parole,
28
and access to their records in advance, that should be the
Id. at 862.
In the context of parole, the
Id.
3
The Supreme Court has held
Id.; see Pearson v.
1
beginning and end of the inquiry into whether the inmate received
2
due process.”) (alterations, internal quotation and citation
3
omitted).
4
In the instant action, Petitioner has never maintained that he
was denied an opportunity to speak at his hearing and contest the
6
evidence against him, that he was denied access to his record in
7
advance, or that he was not notified of the reasons why parole was
8
denied.
9
petition, and expanded upon by Petitioner in his opposition to the
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
5
motion to dismiss, is that the Board's decision was not supported
11
by "some evidence."
12
Petitioner has failed to present a constitutionally cognizable claim
13
for the denial of due process.
14
the petition for failure to state a claim for federal habeas relief
15
is GRANTED.
16
court’s pre-Cooke grant of habeas relief on petitioner’s “some
17
evidence” claim; finding no further due process inquiry required
18
because petitioner had never argued he was not provided the
19
procedures set forth in Cooke).
20
B.
21
Rather, the only argument raised by Petitioner in the
As Cooke clearly forecloses such a claim,
Consequently, the motion to dismiss
See Pearson, 639 F.3d at 1191 (reversing district
Certificate of Appealability
A certificate of appealability is denied with respect to
22
Petitioner's claim.
23
Habeas Corpus Cases Under § 2254, Rule 11 (requiring district court
24
to issue or deny certificate of appealability when entering final
25
order adverse to petitioner).
26
to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
27
right, as he has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Rules Governing
Specifically, Petitioner has failed
28
4
1
find the Court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable
2
or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
3
CONCLUSION
4
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
5
1.
6
Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for failure
to state a claim for federal habeas relief is GRANTED.
7
2.
8
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of
9
A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Respondent, terminate all pending motions, and close the file.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
This Order terminates Docket no. 5.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated:
8/12/2011
13
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2
3
GREGORY A. WALKER,
Case Number: CV10-02234 CW
4
Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
5
v.
6
RANDY GROUNDS et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
/
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 August 12, 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.
13
14
17
Gregory A. Walker D-12881
2-330L
Correctional Training Facility
P.O. Box 689
Soledad, CA 93960
18
Dated: August 12, 2011
15
16
19
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?