Moore v. Grounds
ORDER re 5 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Alvin Moore. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/28/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2011)
Moore v. Grounds
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. R. ROUNDS, Warden, ALVIN MOORE, Petitioner,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 10-05626 SBA (PR) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY /
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 2008 denying him parole. In an Order dated January 14, 2011, the Court dismissed the petition with leave to file an amended petition which clarified the "nature and exhaustion status of all claims which he seeks to raise in his federal petition." (Jan. 14, 2011 Order at 2.) On February 11, 2011, Petitioner filed an amended petition, in which he specifically claims that the Board's 2008 decision to deny him parole 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 original 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. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.
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
§ 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. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent, terminate all pending motions, and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 2/28/11 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge
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 G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.10\Moore5626.Denial-HC-Cooke.wpd 3 Alvin Moore C-29885 Correctional Training Facility - Central P.O. Box 689 Soledad, CA 93960 Dated: February 28, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk 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. v. R ROUNDS et al, Defendant. / ALVIN MOORE, Case Number: CV10-05626 SBA Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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?