Saldana v. Curry
Filing
6
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/6/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2012)
1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
PACO SALDANA,
8
v.
BEN CURRY, Warden,
9
Respondent.
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
Petitioner,
6
7
No. C 10-05011 CW (PR)
/
11
12
Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this pro se habeas corpus
13
action challenging as a violation of his constitutional rights the
14
denial of parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings (Board)
15
on February 24, 2009.
16
action for failure to pay the filing fee, but subsequently reopened
17
the action when the fee was paid.
18
allegations in the petition to determine whether a cognizable claim
19
for federal habeas corpus relief is presented.
Thereafter, the Court dismissed the
The Court now reviews the
20
Petitioner maintains that the Board's finding that he was not
21
suitable for parole violated his right to due process because that
22
finding was not supported by “some evidence" that Petitioner poses
23
a current danger to society if released.
24
A “federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state
25
prisoner 'only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of
26
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'"
27
Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 861 (2011) (internal citation
28
omitted).
The court may not grant habeas relief for state law
1
errors.
Id.
2
In Cooke, the Supreme Court explained that earlier Supreme
3
Court cases had determined that the procedural protections to which
4
a parole applicant is entitled under the Due Process Clause of the
5
Fourteenth Amendment are “minimal."
6
the Supreme Court had “found that a prisoner subject to a parole
7
statute similar to California's received adequate process when he
8
was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement
9
of the reasons why parole was denied."
Id. at 862.
In particular,
Id. at 862 (citing
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S.
11
1, 16 (1979)).
12
that much process at a parole hearing, the federal court's habeas
13
review is at an end.
14
Thus, as long as a petitioner receives at least
See Cooke, 131 S. Ct. at 862.
Further, Cooke made clear that no Supreme Court case “supports
15
converting California's 'some evidence' rule into a substantive
16
federal requirement."
17
have no authority in habeas to determine whether California's “some
18
evidence" rule was correctly applied.
19
if an inmate seeking parole “receives an opportunity to be heard, a
20
notification of the reasons as to denial of parole, and access to
21
[his] records in advance," then there is no due process violation
22
stemming from a claim that a parole denial did not comply with
23
California's “some evidence" rule of judicial review.
24
Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011).
25
Id. at 861.
Therefore, the federal courts
Id. at 863.
Consequently,
Pearson v.
Here, as noted, Petitioner claims the Board's denial of parole
26
violated his right to due process because there was not “some
27
evidence" to find that Petitioner poses a current danger to society
28
if released.
In light of the Supreme Court's determination that
2
1
the constitutionally-mandated procedural protections for which
2
federal habeas relief is available do not include a requirement
3
that there be some evidence (or any other amount of evidence) to
4
support the parole denial, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
5
is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal
6
habeas corpus relief.
7
A certificate of appealability will not issue because
8
Petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a
9
constitutional right."
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This is not a case
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
in which “reasonable jurists would find the district court's
11
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong."
12
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
13
seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of
14
Appeals.
15
16
17
18
Slack
Petitioner may, however,
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, terminate all
pending motions and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/6/2012
19
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?