Lee v. Grounds
Filing
2
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 1/23/12. (Attachments: # 1 certificate of mailing)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ERIC LEE,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
WARDEN RANDY GROUNDS,
15
Respondent.
No. C 12-0179 LHK (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
17
18
28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 2010 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings
19
(“Board”) finding him unsuitable for parole. For the reasons stated below, the Court
20
DISMISSES the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
21
22
23
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
24
custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in
25
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose
26
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).
27
28
A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show
cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\Lee179disparole.wpd
1
applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
2
B.
3
Petitioner’s Claims
As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner alleges that the Board violated his due
4
process rights because there was no evidence to support the Board’s denial of parole. However,
5
the Supreme Court has made clear that a prisoner’s federal due process claim regarding a denial
6
of parole is limited to whether he received the minimum procedures necessary under the federal
7
constitution. Swarthout v. Cooke, No. 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011) (per curiam). Specifically, this
8
Court’s inquiry is limited to whether Petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard, and given
9
a statement of reasons for the denial. Id., citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and
10
Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979). Petitioner’s exhibits demonstrate that he was
11
given those minimum protections. Thus, Petitioner’s allegations fail to state a cognizable claim
12
for federal habeas relief. See id.
13
14
15
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Clerk shall close
the file and enter judgment in this matter.
16
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
17
A certificate of appealability will not issue. Reasonable jurists would not “find the
18
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,
19
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Court of
20
Appeal.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
1/23/12
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\HC.12\Lee179disparole.wpd
2
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?