Harris v. Hartley

Filing 4

ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Marvin Cavil Harris, ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 5/10/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

No. C 11-02123 SBA (PR)

MARVIN CAVIL HARRIS,

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

Petitioner,
v.
JAMES HARTLEY, Warden,
Respondent.

/

Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with a decision by the California Board of

11

Parole Hearings (Board) in 2009 denying him parole. Petitioner specifically claims that the decision

12

does not comport with due process because it is not supported by "some evidence" demonstrating

13

that he poses a current unreasonable threat to the public.

14

A prisoner subject to California's parole statute receives adequate process when he is allowed

15

an opportunity to be heard and is provided with a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.

16

Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011). The attachments to the petition show Petitioner

17

received at least this amount of process. The Constitution does not require more. Id.

18

Whether the Board's decision was supported by some evidence of current dangerousness is

19

irrelevant in federal habeas. The Supreme Court has made clear that "it is no federal

20

concern . . . whether California's 'some evidence' rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what

21

the Constitution demands) was correctly applied." Id. at 863.

22

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Pursuant to

23

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.

24

§ 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that "reasonable jurists would find the district court's

25

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

26

(2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

27
28

Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

1
2
3
4
5

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:

5/10/11
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

6
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
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.11\Harris2123.DenyHC-Cooke.wpd
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

MARVIN CAVIL HARRIS,

7
8

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.

9

JAMES HARTLEY et al,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Case Number: CV11-02123 SBA

Defendant.

/

11
12
13
14
15

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 May 13, 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.

16
17

19

Marvin Cavil Harris C-91589
Avenal State Prison
P.O. Box 900
Avenal, CA 93204

20

Dated: May 13, 2011

18

21

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.11\Harris2123.DenyHC-Cooke.wpd
3