Wheeland v. Grounds

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/6/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 JAMES WHEELAND, Petitioner, 12 vs. 13 14 RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 11-02310 EJD (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 Petitioner, a California prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 18 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the denial of parole in 2009 by the Board of 20 Parole Hearings (“Board”). Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 21 DISCUSSION 22 23 24 A. Standard of Review This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 25 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in 26 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 27 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 28 A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to Order Dismissing Petition; Denying COA G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.11\02310Wheeland_parole-dism.wpd 1 show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that 2 the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 3 B. 4 Petitioner’s Claims Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief based on the ground that the Board’s decision 5 to deny parole was not supported by “some evidence” bearing an indicia of reliability. 6 (Pet. Attach. at 18-25.) 7 For the purposes of habeas federal habeas review, a California prisoner is entitled determination. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011). The procedural 10 protections to which the prisoner is entitled under the Due Process Clause of the 11 For the Northern District of California to only “minimal” procedural protections in connection with a parole suitability 9 United States District Court 8 Fourteenth Amendment are limited to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the 12 reasons why parole was denied. Id. Petitioner makes no allegation in the petition to 13 indicate that he did not receive at least this amount of process. The Constitution does not 14 require more. Id. at 5. 15 Whether the Board’s decision was supported by some reliable evidence of current 16 dangerousness is irrelevant in federal habeas. The Supreme Court has made clear that “it 17 is no federal concern... whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a 18 procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Id. at 6. In 19 light of the Supreme Court’s determination that due process does not require that there be 20 any amount of evidence to support the parole denial, Petitioner’s claim fails to state a 21 cognizable claim for relief. 22 CONCLUSION 23 24 25 26 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of 27 appealability (“COA”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said 28 that “reasonable jurists” would find the district court’s assessment of the constitution Order Dismissing Petition; Denying COA G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.11\02310Wheeland_parole-dism.wpd 2 1 claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 2 3 DATED: 7/6/2012 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order Dismissing Petition; Denying COA G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.11\02310Wheeland_parole-dism.wpd 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES WHEELAND, Case Number: CV11-02310 EJD Petitioner, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent. / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 7/6/2012 That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. James Wheeland F-93221 Soledad State Prison P. O. Box 689 Soledad, CA 93960-0689 Dated: 7/6/2012 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk /s/By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk

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?