Dennis v. Curry, No. 07-55443 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 28 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD E. DENNIS, No. 07-55443 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-04031-ABC v. MEMORANDUM * BEN CURRY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Audrey B. Collins, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted October 19, 2010 ** Before: O SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Ronald E. Dennis appeals pro se from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253,1 and we affirm. Dennis contends that the Board of Parole Hearings s 2005 decision to deny him parole violated his due process rights. Our review of the record indicates that the state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the Board s decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 563 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Dennis s contention that the Board relied only on the commitment offense in finding him unsuitable for parole is belied by the record. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). Dennis s requests for appointment of counsel, judicial notice, and an evidentiary hearing are denied. All pending motions are denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 1 We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether some evidence of current dangerousness supported the California Board of Parole Hearings s 2004 decision to deny parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We decline to certify for appeal Dennis s remaining contentions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (certificate of appealability requires substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right ). 2 07-55443
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
