Gomez v. Grounds

Filing 13

ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Robert Gomez. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/28/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2011)

Gomez v. Grounds

Doc. 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. ROBERT GOMEZ, Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 10-02262 SBA (PR) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND DENYING PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT /

RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent.

Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with a decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings (Board) in 2007 denying him parole. In an Order dated August 25, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. On November 22, 2010, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), the statute of limitations established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Thereafter, Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion, and Respondent filed a reply to the opposition. In his petition, Petitioner specifically claims that the Board's 2007 denial does not comport with due process because it is not supported by some evidence demonstrating that he poses a current unreasonable threat to the public. A prisoner subject to California's parole statute receives adequate process when he is allowed an opportunity to be heard and is provided with a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011). The attachments to the petition show Petitioner received at least this amount of process. The Constitution does not require more. Id. Whether the Board's decision was supported by some evidence of current dangerousness is irrelevant in federal habeas. The Supreme Court has made clear that "it is no federal concern . . . whether California's 'some evidence' rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied." Id. at 863.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and the Court's Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Respondent's motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent, terminate all pending motions, and close the file. This Order terminates Docket no. 7. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 2/28/11 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.10\Gomez2262.denyHC-Cooke&denyMTDasMOOT.wpd 2

1 2 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT GOMEZ,

4 Plaintiff, 5 v. 6 RANDY GROUNDS et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: February 28, 2011 Robert Gomez H-51048 Salinas Valley State Prison - Soledad P.O. Box 689 Soledad, CA 93960-0689 /

Case Number: CV10-02262 SBA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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 February 28, 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.

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.10\Gomez2262.denyHC-Cooke&denyMTDasMOOT.wpd 3