Johnson v. Martel
Filing
3
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/13/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2012)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
JOHN M. JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
8
vs.
9
ORDER DISMISSING
PETITION AND DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden,
Respondent.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 12-0964 PJH (PR)
/
12
13
This is a habeas corpus action filed pro se by a California prisoner currently
14
incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison. The petition attacks denial of parole, so venue is
15
proper in this district, which is where petitioner is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
16
BACKGROUND
17
In 1983 petitioner was convicted of murder. He was sentenced to prison for fifteen
18
years to life on the murder conviction. On June 22, 2010, the Board of Parole Hearings
19
granted parole to petitioner. However, on November 19, 2010, the governor reversed the
20
grant of parole, which petitioner now challenges. He claims to have exhausted these
21
claims by way of state habeas petitions.
DISCUSSION
22
23
24
A.
Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
25
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody
26
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §
27
2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet
28
heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An
1
application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody
2
pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to
3
the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules
4
Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the
5
petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’”
6
Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.
7
1970)). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject
8
to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102,
9
1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring).
B.
Legal Claims
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
As his sole ground for federal habeas relief, petitioner generally asserts that the
12
governor relied on improper factors such as the immutable and unchanging facts of the
13
crime, the fact that petitioner did not have a job offer and that the governor failed to follow
14
state regulations.
15
The United States Supreme Court has recently held that “[i]n the context of parole . .
16
. the procedures required [by the due process clause] are minimal . . . an opportunity to be
17
heard and . . . a statement of the reasons why parole was denied . . . ‘[t]he Constitution . . .
18
does not require more.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011). As long as the
19
petitioner received at least that much process, the federal court's habeas review is at an
20
end. Id. at 862. That is, there is no constitutional right to “individual consideration.”
21
Petitioner is essentially challenging the evidence relied on by the governor in
22
reversing the parole grant, not the procedural protections he received. Pursuant to
23
Swarthout this claim is foreclosed on federal habeas review. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit
24
held that the governor is not required to hold a second parole suitability hearing before
25
reversing the Board's determination that the prisoner was suitable for parole. Styre v.
26
Adams, 645 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, this petition is dismissed.
27
///
28
///
2
1
CONCLUSION
2
Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket # 2) is GRANTED.
3
For the reasons discussed above, petitioner cannot obtain relief on any of his claims.
4
The petition therefore is DISMISSED. Furthermore, because reasonable jurists would not
5
find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack
6
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). The clerk shall close the
7
file.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated: November 13, 2012.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.12\Johnson0964.dismiss.wpd
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?