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