Sanchez v. Grounds
Filing
10
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 9/8/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011)
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?