Thetford v. Davis
Filing
7
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 3/31/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
DEXTON THETFORD,
Petitioner,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
Case No. 17-cv-00092-HSG (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
RON DAVIS, Warden,
Respondent.
15
INTRODUCTION
16
17
Dexton Thetford, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a
18
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge the Board of Parole Hearings
19
(“BPH”) decision finding him not suitable for parole. For the reasons discussed below, the
20
petition will be dismissed.
21
BACKGROUND
22
Thetford was received in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in
23
January 1989 after a conviction for first degree murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187). He is currently
24
serving a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for the offense.
25
A parole hearing was conducted for Thetford on December 3, 2015. At the conclusion of
26
the hearing, the BPH panel found him not suitable for parole. The BPH also determined that the
27
denial of parole would be a three-year denial, meaning that Thetford will not have a regularly
28
scheduled parole suitability hearing for three years after the December 3, 2015 parole hearing.
1
Thetford filed habeas petitions in state court to challenge the BPH’s decision. The Los
2
Angeles County Superior Court and the California Court of Appeal denied his petitions, and the
3
California Supreme Court denied review. Thetford then filed this action.
DISCUSSION
5
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
6
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
7
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A
8
district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue
9
an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it
10
appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
4
U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are
12
vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez,
13
908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
14
As grounds for federal habeas relief, Thetford alleges that the BPH violated his due
15
process rights by relying on a rules violation report (“RVR”) from 2013, charging him with
16
misconduct in prison. Thetford alleges that the RVR had been dismissed, making it improper for
17
the BPH to consider the RVR in determining parole suitability.
18
However, the Supreme Court has made clear that a prisoner’s federal due process claim
19
regarding a denial of parole is limited to whether he received the minimum procedures necessary
20
under the federal constitution. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011) (per curiam).
21
Specifically, this Court’s inquiry is limited to whether Thetford was given an opportunity to be
22
heard, and given a statement of reasons for the denial. Id., citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb.
23
Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979). Thetford does not dispute that he
24
received those two procedural protections (and the record before this court plainly shows that he
25
did receive them). Accordingly, Thetford’s allegations fail to state a cognizable claim for federal
26
habeas relief. See id.
27
28
A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in
which “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
2
1
debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
2
CONCLUSION
3
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. Petitioner’s in forma pauperis
4
applications are GRANTED. (Docket Nos. 2, 5.) The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the
5
file.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/31/2017
8
9
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
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?