Green v. The State of California Board of Parole Hearings

Filing 18

ORDER (1) ADOPTING 16 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) granting Respondent's 9 Motion to Dismiss; and (3) denying Certificate of Appealability: This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/29/11.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONALD GREEN, CASE NO. 10-CV-2516 JLS (JMA) Petitioner, 12 ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND (3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY vs. 13 14 15 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS; MATTHEW CATE, 16 Respondents. (ECF Nos. 9, 16) 17 18 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Donald Green’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. 19 (ECF No. 1.) Also before the Court are Respondent Matthew Cate’s1 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) 20 and Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler’s report and recommendation advising the Court to grant 21 Respondent’s motion and dismiss the petition without prejudice to Petitioner bringing his claim under 22 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (R&R, ECF No. 16). 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court’s 24 duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court must 25 “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made,” and “may 26 accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate 27 28 1 On July 26, 2011, Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, was substituted as Respondent in place of “L.S. McEwen.” (ECF No. 17.) -1- 10cv2516 1 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980); 2 United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely 3 objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in 4 order to accept the report and recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing 5 Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna- 6 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s 7 findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 8 Here, Petitioner failed to timely object to Magistrate Judge Adler’s report and 9 recommendation. (See R&R 6 (ordering parties to file objections “not later than August 16, 2011”).) 10 Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned, 11 and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Adler’s report and 12 recommendation, (2) GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and (3) DISMISSES the petition 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner bringing his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 14 The Court is obliged to determine whether a certificate of appealability should issue in this 15 matter. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has 16 made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A 17 petitioner satisfies this standard by showing that “reasonable jurists” would debate the Court’s 18 assessment of the constitutional claims. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Where, as 19 here, the petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue when 20 the petitioner shows, at least, [1] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition 21 states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and [2] that jurists of reason would find it 22 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. 23 Here, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists would neither debate that the petition fails 24 to state a valid constitutional claim nor debate the propriety of the Court’s procedural ruling. Because 25 Petitioner does not challenge the duration of his confinement, he fails to establish subject matter 26 jurisdiction for federal habeas relief. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) 27 (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison 28 condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence.”). Moreover, Petitioner fails to allege -2- 10cv2516 1 facts to establish that he was deprived of his liberty interest in parole, see Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 2 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. —, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011)), and 3 his contention that the state misapplied its own regulatory law is not a cognizable ground for federal 4 habeas relief, see Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). Accordingly, the Court DENIES 5 a certificate of appealability. 6 This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 11 DATED: August 29, 2011 Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- 10cv2516

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?