Thetford v. Davis

Filing 8

***DISREGARD, INCORRECT DOCMENT ATTACHED. SEE DOCKET NO. 9 .*** JUDGMENT. 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) Modified on 3/31/2017 (ndrS, COURT STAFF).

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