(HC) Martinez v. Warden, Avenal State Prison, No. 1:2009cv01291 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER DECLINING to Adopt 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summarily DISMISSED with prejudice; ORDER DENYING Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of the Court to enter Judgment; ORDER DENYING a CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; ORDER VACATING January 18, 2011 Order 25 AS MOOT, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 02/15/2011. CASE CLOSED(Martin, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Martinez v. Warden, Avenal State Prison Doc. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROMAN CAMACHO MARTINEZ, 10 11 1:09-CV–1291 AWI-JMD (HC) Petitioner, ORDER REGARDING FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 15) v. ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 12 J.D. HARTLEY, 13 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT Respondent. 14 / 15 ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 ORDER VACATING JANUARY 18, 2011 ORDER (Doc. No. 25) AS MOOT 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 16, 2010. See 21 Doc. No. 1. Petitioner challenges the California Board of Parole Hearings’s April 22, 2008 22 decision finding him unsuitable for release. Petitioner claims the California courts unreasonably 23 determined that there was “some evidence” he posed a current risk of danger to the public if 24 released. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on January 11, 2010, and Petitioner filed a 25 traverse on February 1, 2010. 26 On August 16, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation 27 ("F&R") that the petition be DENIED. The F&R was served on all parties and contained notice 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. On 2 September 7, 2010, Petitioner filed objections. On September 20, 2010, Respondent filed a reply 3 to the objections. On January 11, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for Judicial Notice. In 4 response to Petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Notice, on January 18, 2011, the Court ordered 5 Respondent to lodge additional documents pertaining to Petitioner’s subsequent parole hearing. 6 See Doc. No. 25. Having reviewed the record, the Court agrees that the petition be denied. 7 However, the F&R relied on case law, which has since been overruled. Thus, the Court issues 8 the following analysis. Additionally, the Court vacates as moot its January 18, 2011 Order (Doc. 9 No. 25) directing respondent to lodge additional documents. 10 On January 24, 2011, the Supreme Court held that the liberty interest at issue in these 11 parole cases is the interest in receiving parole when the California standards for parole have been 12 met, and the “minimum procedures adequate for due process protection of that interest are those 13 set forth in [Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 14 (1979)].” Swarthout v. Cooke, ___ U.S.___, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1067, *7 (Jan. 15 24, 2011). Swarthout explained that no Supreme Court opinion “supports converting 16 California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement.” Id. “Because the only 17 federal right at issue is procedural, the relevant inquiry is what process [the Petitioner] received, 18 not whether the state court decided the case correctly.” Id. at *9; Smiley v. Hernandez, 2011 19 U.S. App. LEXIS 1943 (January 28, 2011). If a petitioner receives the minimal procedural 20 requirements of Greenholtz, i.e. an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why 21 parole was denied, then the federal Due Process Clause will have been satisfied and federal 22 review ends. See Swarthout, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1067 at *6-*7; Kutylo v. Vaughan, 2011 U.S. 23 App. LEXIS 2503 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011); Smiley, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1943. 24 Review of the instant case reveals Petitioner was present at his parole hearing, was given 25 an opportunity to be heard, and was provided a statement of reasons for the parole board’s 26 decision. See Respondent’s Answer Exh. 1. “The Constitution does not require more [process].” 27 Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16; see Swarthout, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1067 at *6-*7. As explained 28 above, Petitioner’s contention regarding application of California’s “some evidence standard” is 2 1 not cognizable. Petitioner’s petition will be summarily dismissed. 2 3 4 Certificate of Appealability A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 5 district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. 6 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining 7 whether to issue a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows: 8 9 10 11 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held. (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings. 12 (c) 13 14 15 16 17 (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from– (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255. (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 18 19 20 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2). If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of 21 appealability “if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 22 constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 23 encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 24 484 (2000). While the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must 25 demonstrate “something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on 26 his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 27 28 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or 3 1 deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial 2 showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to 3 issue a certificate of appealability. 4 5 ORDER 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. 8 9 The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is SUMMARILY DISMISSED with prejudice; 2. 10 The Court declines to adopt the Findings and Recommendation of August 16, 2010 (Doc. No. 15); 11 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case; 12 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 13 5. The Court’s January 18, 2011 Order (Doc. No. 25) directing Respondent to Lodge 14 Additional Documents is vacated as moot. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: 0m8i78 February 15, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
