Alfred Sennie v. Ronald Davis

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY re 1 . Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/17/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALFRED SENNIE,
Petitioner,

8
v.

9
10

RONALD DAVIS, Warden,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

Respondent.

11
12

Case No. 16-cv-05949-YGR (PR)

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

13

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

14

Parole Hearings (“Board”) in denying him parole on April 9, 2015. Petitioner specifically claims

15

that the decision does not comport with due process because it is not supported by “some

16

evidence” demonstrating that he poses a current unreasonable threat to the public.1 Petitioner has

17

paid the full filing fee.

18

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

19

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

20

denied. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). The allegations in the petition show

21

Petitioner received at least this amount of process. Dkt. 1 at 28-64; Dkt. 1-1 at 1-64; Dkt. 1-2 at 1-

22

7. The Constitution does not require more. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220.

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

Petitioner’s claim relating to an alleged violation of a state court settlement agreement in
In re Butler, Cal. Ct. App. Case Nos. A139411 and A137273, does not show that he is in custody
in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States,” as is necessary for
federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A state court settlement agreement might create
state law rights, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal habeas writ is
unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged error in the interpretation or application of
state law. See Swarthiest v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62,
67-68 (1991). Moreover, the settlement agreement in In re Butler, required only that the Board
take steps to set “base terms and adjusted base terms for life term inmates,” see Dkt. 1-2 at 12, and
did not require that the Board release any prisoner or find any prisoner suitable for parole.

1

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

2

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

3

whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the

4

Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Id. at 221.

5

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

6

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

7

§ 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that “reasonable jurists would find the district

8

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

9

473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of

10

Appeals.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: February 17, 2017

14
15
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2