-GSA (HC) Falcon v. Hense et al, No. 1:2009cv00660 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 04/24/2012. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 5/14/2012. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
-GSA (HC) Falcon v. Hense et al Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LIONEL FALCON, 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) ) LYDIA C. HENSE, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) 1:09-CV-00660 AWI GSA HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 16 17 18 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He challenges the 20 California court decisions upholding a January 22, 2008, decision of the California Board of Parole 21 Hearings. Petitioner claims the California courts unreasonably determined that there was some 22 evidence he posed a current risk of danger to the public if released. 23 DISCUSSION 24 On January 24, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Swarthout v. Cooke, ___ 25 U.S.___, 131 S.Ct. 859, 2011 WL 197627 (2011). In Swarthout, the Supreme Court held that “the 26 responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s 27 parole system are properly applied rests with California courts.” Id., 131 S.Ct. at 863. The Supreme 28 Court stated that a federal habeas court’s inquiry into whether a prisoner denied parole received due U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 process is limited to determining whether the prisoner “was allowed an opportunity to be heard and 2 was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Id., at 862, citing, Greenholtz v. 3 Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979). Review of the instant case 4 reveals Petitioner was present at his parole hearing, was given an opportunity to be heard, and was 5 provided a statement of reasons for the parole board’s decision. (See Answer Ex. A.) According to 6 the Supreme Court, this is “the beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’ inquiry into 7 whether [the prisoner] received due process.” Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862. “The Constitution does 8 not require more [process].” Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16. Therefore, the instant petition does not 9 present cognizable claims for relief, and no cognizable claim could be raised if leave to amend were 10 granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). The petition should be dismissed. 11 RECOMMENDATION 12 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED. 14 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United 15 States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of 16 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 17 Within fourteen (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 18 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 19 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the 20 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The 21 Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The 22 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 23 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 6i0kij April 24, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 2

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.