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)
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?