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)

Download PDF
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?