Walker v. Grounds et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 3/6/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

JEFFERSON D. WALKER,

13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN RANDY GROUNDS,

16

Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-2447 LHK (PR)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

17
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings
19
(“Board”) in 2009 finding him unsuitable for parole. Respondent was ordered to show cause
20
why the writ should not be granted. Respondent filed an answer with a supporting memorandum
21
and exhibits, and Petitioner filed a traverse. For the reasons discussed below, the petition is
22
DENIED.
23
BACKGROUND
24
In 1982, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 25 years-to-life in state prison after being
25
convicted of first degree murder and related offenses in Alameda County Superior Court. At his
26
parole suitability hearing on August 11, 2009, the Board found Petitioner to be unsuitable for
27
parole. Petitioner challenged this decision unsuccessfully in state habeas petitions filed in all
28
Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Denying Certificate of Appealability
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.11\Walker447hcden.wpd

1

three levels of the California courts. Petitioner thereafter filed the instant petition.

2
3

DISCUSSION
I.

4

Standard of Review
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

5

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

6

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

7

petition may not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state

8

court unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim: “(1) resulted in a decision that was

9

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

10

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was

11

based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

12

State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

13

“Under the ‘contrary to’ clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state

14

court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of

15

law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the] Court has on a set of materially

16

indistinguishable facts.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). “Under the

17

‘reasonable application clause,’ a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court

18

identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the] Court’s decisions but unreasonably

19

applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id. at 413.

20

“[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because the court concludes in its

21

independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal

22

law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, the application must also be unreasonable.” Id. at 411.

23

A federal habeas court making the “unreasonable application” inquiry should ask whether the

24

state court’s application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.” Id. at

25

409.

26
27

The only definitive source of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is
in the holdings (as opposed to the dicta) of the Supreme Court as of the time of the state court

28
Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Denying Certificate of Appealability
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.11\Walker447hcden.wpd

2

1

decision. Id. at 412. Clearly established federal law is defined as “the governing legal principle

2

or principles set forth by the Supreme Court.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72 (2003).

3

Circuit law may be “persuasive authority” for purposes of determining whether a state court

4

decision is an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, however, only the Supreme

5

Court’s holdings are binding on the state courts, and only those holdings need be “reasonably”

6

applied. Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003).

7

II.

8
9

Petitioner’s Claims
Petitioner claims that his right to due process was violated because he was not permitted

to respond to the victim’s next of kin’s statements at Petitioner’s parole suitability hearing before

10

the Board.1 Much of Petitioner’s claim also challenges the veracity of the statements made by

11

the victim’s next of kin at his parole hearing.

12

The United States Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

13

Amendment to the United States Constitution entitles a California prisoner to only “minimal”

14

procedural protections in connection with a parole suitability determination. Swarthout v.

15

Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011) (per curiam). Specifically, the Due Process Clause only

16

entitles a California prisoner to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why

17

parole was denied. Id. The parole hearing transcript makes clear that Petitioner was given those

18

minimum protections. (Dkt. No. 6-8 at 45 - Dkt. No. 6-10 at 6; Dkt. No. 6-10 at 29 - Dkt. No. 6-

19

11 at 3.) Thus, Petitioner’s allegation fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief.

20

See id.

21

Moreover, even assuming there was constitutional error, Petitioner cannot demonstrate

22

that such an error had a substantial or injurious effect on the outcome. See Brecht v.

23

Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993). A review of the transcript from the parole hearing

24

demonstrates that the Board’s denial was based on several factors including, inter alia, the

25
26
27
28

1

In the Court’s order to show cause, the Court recognized that Petitioner’s petition also
raised a claim that California Penal Code § 3043(b) was unconstitutionally broad. However,
Petitioner opted to withdraw this claim. (Traverse at 2.) Accordingly, this claim is
DISMISSED.
Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Denying Certificate of Appealability
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.11\Walker447hcden.wpd

3

1

gravity of the underlying commitment offense, Petitioner’s social history, Petitioner’s past and

2

present mental state, Petitioner’s past and present attitude about the underlying crime, and

3

Petitioner’s lack of insight into the causative factors of the crime. (Dkt. No. 6-10 at 29-32.)

4

Thus, even without the testimonies of the victim’s next of kin, the result of Petitioner’s parole

5

suitability hearing would not have been different. See In re Weider, 145 Cal. Capp. 4th 570,

6

161-62 (2006) (concluding that if the Board finds no evidence of unsuitability of parole, it

7

cannot rely solely on opposition from the District Attorney and victim’s family’s statements to

8

deny parole).

9

CONCLUSION

10

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

11

Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that his claim amounted to a denial of

12

his constitutional rights or demonstrate that a reasonable jurist would find the denial of his claim

13

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate

14

of appealability is warranted in this case.

15

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

3/6/13
DATED: _______________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; Denying Certificate of Appealability
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.11\Walker447hcden.wpd

4