Edward Judson Wright v. A M Gonzales
Filing
4
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING CASE by Judge Christina A. Snyder. (See document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ib)
<![CDATA[
1
O
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDWARD J. WRIGHT,
12
13
14
15
Petitioner,
vs.
A.M. GONZALES, Warden,
Respondent.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. CV 13-5945 CAS (RZ)
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PAROLE HABEAS ACTION
PURSUANT TO SWARTHOUT v.
COOKE
17
Because Petitioner’s challenge to his recent denial of parole plainly lacks
18
merit, the Court will dismiss the action summarily. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
19
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides in part that “[i]f it plainly appears
20
from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled
21
to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and
22
cause the petitioner to be notified.”
23
Petitioner Edward J. Wright is serving a lengthy prison sentence following his
24
1983 convictions for murder and robbery. In November of 2012, the Board of Parole
25
Hearings found him unsuitable for parole. Having exhausted a state habeas challenge to
26
the parole denial, Petitioner now seeks habeas relief from this Court. In two overlapping
27
claims, he asserts that the Board improperly weighed the evidence and thereby denied his
28
federal Due Process rights.
1
Relief is foreclosed by Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 859, 178
2
L. Ed. 2d 732 (2011) (Cooke). Cooke reversed two rulings by the Ninth Circuit granting
3
habeas relief based on a lack of “some evidence” of the inmates’ current dangerousness.
4
Cooke said that such a “some evidence” requirement is a state, not federal, requirement and
5
held that “the responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally adequate procedures
6
governing California’s parole system are properly applied rests with California courts, and
7
is no part of the Ninth Circuit's business.” The federal habeas court’s inquiry – in cases,
8
such as this one, in which a prisoner seeks habeas relief based on an alleged violation of
9
the federal Due Process Clause – is limited to determining whether the prisoner “was
10
allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole
11
was denied.” Id., citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex,
12
442 U.S. 1, 16, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1979).
13
Here, Petitioner was present at his parole hearing, was given an opportunity to
14
be heard, and was provided a statement of reasons for the denial of parole. See Exs. 1 & 2
15
to Pet. (board hearing transcript excerpts). Petitioner sharply disagrees with those reasons,
16
but “[t]he Constitution does not require more.” Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16. In light of
17
Cooke, Petitioner presents no cognizable claim for relief based on federal law.
18
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the action with prejudice.
19
20
DATED: August 19, 2013
21
22
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
-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?
