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)

Download PDF
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

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?