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)
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?