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