Barker v. Grounds

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 4/21/11. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2011)

1
2
3
*E-FILED - 4/21/11*
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
ROBERT BARKER,
11
Petitioner,
12
vs.
13
WARDEN R. GROUNDS,
14
Respondent.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-0609 RMW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
17
28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 2008 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings’
18
(“Board”) finding him unsuitable for parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. For the reasons
19
stated below, the court DISMISSES the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
20
BACKGROUND
21
According to the petition, in 1986, petitioner was found guilty of first degree murder with
22
the use of a weapon, and was sentenced to a term of 26 years-to-life in state prison. On
23
September 23, 2008, petitioner was denied parole. Petitioner challenged this decision
24
unsuccessfully in all three levels of state court.
25
DISCUSSION
26
A.

Standard of Review

27
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
28
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.11\Barker609dis.wpd

1

custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in

2

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose

3

v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).

4

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

5

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the

6

applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

7

B.

8
9

Petitioner’s Claims
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner claims only that the Board improperly

denied parole based on the unchanging facts of the underlying commitment offense in the face of

10

evidence of significant rehabilitation and without sufficient evidence that Petitioner would

11

currently be a danger to society if released. However, the Supreme Court has recently made

12

clear that a prisoner’s federal due process claim regarding a denial of parole is limited to whether

13

he received the minimum procedures necessary under the federal constitution. Swarthout v.

14

Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (U.S. 2011) (per curiam). Specifically, this court’s inquiry is

15

limited to whether petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard, and given a statement of

16

reasons for the denial. Id. at 862, citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional

17

Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979). Thus, petitioner’s claim fails to state a cognizable claim for

18

federal habeas relief. See id.

19
20

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Clerk shall close
the file and enter judgment in this matter.

21

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

22

A certificate of appealability will not issue. Reasonable jurists would not “find the

23

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

24

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Court of

25

Appeals.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 4/21/11
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

28
Order of Dismissal
P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.11\Barker609dis.wpd

2