Sanchez v. Grounds

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/8/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 ROBERTO SANCHEZ, 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 No. C 11-02906 SBA (PR) Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY v. RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent. / 12 13 Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming 14 that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with a decision by the California Board of 15 Parole Hearings (Board) in 2009 denying him parole. Petitioner specifically claims that the decision 16 does not comport with due process because it is not supported by "some evidence" demonstrating 17 that he poses a current unreasonable threat to the public. He also claims that the Board applied a 18 "blanket policy" in denying him parole, which violated his right to due process. 19 A prisoner subject to California's parole statute receives adequate process when he is allowed 20 an opportunity to be heard and is provided with a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. 21 Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011). The attachments to the petition show Petitioner 22 received at least this amount of process. The Constitution does not require more. Id. 23 Whether the Board's decision was supported by some evidence of current dangerousness is 24 irrelevant in federal habeas. The Supreme Court has made clear that "it is no federal 25 concern . . . whether California's 'some evidence' rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what 26 the Constitution demands) was correctly applied." Id. at 863. 27 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Pursuant to 28 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 1 assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 2 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3 The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent, and close the file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: 9/8/11 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\Sanchez2906.HC-Cooke.wpd 2 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 ROBERTO SANCHEZ, Case Number: CV11-02906 SBA 4 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 5 v. 6 RANDY GROUNDS et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 / 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 September 9, 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. 13 14 15 16 17 Roberto Sanchez D-67539 Correctional Training Facility (689) P.O. Box 689 Soledad, CA 93960 Dated: September 9, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.11\Sanchez2906.HC-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?