Zambrano v. Grounds

Filing 6

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 5 MOTION FORRECONSIDERATION OR,ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FORCERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 No. C 11-00229 CW (PR) NICHOLAS P. ZAMBRANO, 5 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR, ALTERNATIVELY, REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 6 v. 7 RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, 8 Respondent. 9 / (Docket no. 5) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Petitioner filed this pro se petition for a writ of 11 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging as a 12 violation of his constitutional rights a 2009 decision to deny him 13 parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings (Board). 14 Specifically, Petitioner claims that the Board's decision does not 15 comport with due process because it is not supported by some 16 evidence demonstrating that he poses a current unreasonable threat 17 to the public. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On February 15, 2011, the Court denied the petition, finding as follows: In the context of parole, a prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to California's 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, No. 10-333, slip op. at 4-5 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2011). The attachments to the petition show Petitioner received at least this amount of process. The Constitution does not require more. Id. at 5. Whether the Board's decision was supported by some evidence of current dangerousness is irrelevant on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. 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 6. 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. And 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. 2 3 4 5 6 Feb. 15, 2011 Order at 1:17-2:10. 7 Petitioner now moves for reconsideration of the Court's 8 decision denying the instant petition by arguing that the Supreme 9 Court wrongly decided Cooke. Petitioner's disagreement with the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Supreme Court's decision does not provide a basis for the Court to 11 set aside the Order denying his habeas petition or the judgment 12 thereon. 13 Further, Petitioner's renewed request for a certificate of 14 appealability also is without merit. 15 clarified: "Cooke was unequivocal in holding that if an inmate 16 seeking parole receives an opportunity to be heard, a notification 17 of the reasons as to denial of parole, and access to their records 18 in advance, '[t]hat should . . . be [] the beginning and the end of 19 [the] inquiry into whether [the inmate] received due process.'" 20 Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 21 Cooke, 131 S. Ct. at 862). 22 disputed that he was provided with the above procedural safeguards 23 at his hearing, and the record shows that he was, the Court 24 continues to find that reasonable jurists would not "find the 25 district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable 26 or wrong." 27 // 28 // As the Ninth Circuit recently Because Petitioner herein has not Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 2 1 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's motion 2 for reconsideration or, alternatively, request for a certificate of 3 appealability is DENIED. 4 This Order terminates Docket no. 5. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 2/3/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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?