(HC) Lewis v. Gonzales, No. 1:2009cv01480 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Summarily Dismiss 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; ORDER DIRECTING that Objections be Filed within Twenty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/24/2011. Referred to Judge Oliver W. Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 3/21/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Lewis v. Gonzales Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 JOHN LEWIS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) ) FERNANDO GONZALES, ) ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) 1:09-cv-01480-OWW-JLT HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUMMARILY DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 17 18 19 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 24, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1). 21 On January 8, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition. (Doc. 5). On 22 March 9, 2010, Respondent filed the Answer. (Doc. 10). On March 31, 2010, Petitioner filed his 23 Traverse. (Doc. 11). 24 Petitioner challenges the California court decisions upholding a October 10, 2007, decision of 25 the California Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”). Petitioner claims the California courts 26 unreasonably determined that there was some evidence that he posed a current risk of danger to the 27 public if released. 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 I. Preliminary Screening of the Petition. 2 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition 3 if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is 4 not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 5 The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any 6 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....” Habeas Rule 4; 7 O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 8 (9th cir. 1990). Habeas Rule 2( c) requires that a petition (1) specify all grounds of relief available to 9 the Petitioner; (2) state the facts supporting each ground; and (3) state the relief requested. Notice 10 pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that point to a real possibility of 11 constitutional error. Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; O’Bremski, 915 F.2d at 12 420. Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to 13 summary dismissal. Hendricks, 908 F.2d at 491. 14 Further, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a 15 petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the 16 respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Advisory 17 Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 8, 1976 Adoption; see Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th 18 Cir.2001). 19 II. Failure to State a Claim Cognizable Under Federal Habeas Corpus 20 On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 21 1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA imposes various requirements on all petitions for writ of habeas 22 corpus filed after the date of its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2063 23 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 586 24 (1997). The instant petition was filed on October 24, 2009, and thus, it is subject to the provisions of 25 the AEDPA. 26 Here, Petitioner alleges that he is an inmate of the California Department of Corrections and 27 Rehabilitation who is serving a sentence of fifteen years-to-life imposed in the Kern County Superior 28 Court after Petitioner’s 1987 conviction for second degree murder. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 2 1 challenges the October 10, 2007 decision of the BPH finding him unsuitable for parole. Petitioner 2 raises the following grounds for relief: (1) no evidence was presented to the BPH that Petitioner 3 posed an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety; (2) California Supreme 4 Court decisions regarding a prisoner’s liberty interest are dispositive; (3) this Court does not need to 5 defer to findings and conclusions unsupported by the record; (4) the state court decisions were 6 contrary to and an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; and (5) the BPH 7 violated California law by requiring Petitioner to admit guilt as a condition of being granted parole. 8 (Doc. 1, pp. 9-11). 9 10 A. Substantive Due Process Claims And California’s “Some Evidence” Standard In essence, Petitioner contends that the BPH’s decision is not supported by “some evidence,” 11 as required under California law, that the findings and conclusions of the BPH are unsupported by 12 the record, and that the BPH violated California law by requiring Petitioner to admit his guilt before 13 finding him suitable for parole. As discussed below, these claims sound entirely in substantive 14 federal due process and are therefore not cognizable in these proceedings. 15 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 of 16 Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless 17 he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states that the federal courts 18 shall entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus only on the ground that the petitioner “is in 19 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 20 2254(a)(, 2241( c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 n. 7, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (2000); Wilson v. 21 Corcoran, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 13, 16 (2010); see also, Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 22 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of 23 habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. 24 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 25 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court resulted 26 in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 27 Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or resulted in a decision that 28 was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 3 1 2 State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). Because California’s statutory parole scheme guarantees that prisoners will not be denied 3 parole absent some evidence of present dangerousness, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held 4 that California law creates a liberty interest in parole that may be enforced under the Due Process 5 Clause. Hayward v. Marshall, 602 F.3d 546, 561-563 (9th Cir.2010); Pearson v. Muntz, 606 F.3d 6 606, 608-609 (9th Cir. 2010); Cooke v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206, 1213 (2010), rev’d, Swarthout v. 7 Cooke, ___ U.S.___, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2011 WL 197627 (Jan. 24, 2011). The Ninth Circuit instructed 8 reviewing federal district courts to determine whether California’s application of California’s “some 9 evidence” rule was unreasonable or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light 10 11 of the evidence. Hayward v. Marshall. 603 F.3d at 563; Pearson v. Muntz, 606 F.3d at 608. On January 24, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Swarthout v. Cooke, 12 562 U.S.___, ___ S.Ct. ___, 2011 WL 197627 (No. 10-133, Jan. 24, 2011). In that decision, the 13 United States Supreme Court characterized as reasonable the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 14 Ninth Circuit that California law creates a liberty interest in parole protected by the Fourteenth 15 Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which in turn requires fair procedures with respect to the liberty 16 interest. Swarthout, 2011 WL 197627, *2. 17 However, the procedures required for a parole determination are the minimal requirements 18 set forth in Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 12, 99 S.Ct. 19 2100 (1979).1 Swarthout v. Cooke, 2011 WL 197627, *2. In Swarthout, the Court rejected inmates’ 20 claims that they were denied a liberty interest because there was an absence of “some evidence” to 21 support the decision to deny parole. In doing so, the High Court stated as follows: 22 23 24 25 There is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners. (Citation omitted.) When, however, a State creates a liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires fair procedures for its vindication–and federal courts will review the application of those constitutionally required procedures. In the context of parole, we have held that the procedures requires are minimal. In Greenholtz, we found that a prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to California’s received adequate process when he was 26 1 27 28 In Greenholtz, the Court held that a formal hearing is not required with respect to a decision concerning granting or denying discretionary parole and that due process is sufficient to permit the inmate to have an opportunity to be heard and to be given a statement of reasons for the decision made. Id. at 15-16. The decision maker is not required to state the evidence relied upon in coming to the decision. Id. U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 4 1 allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. (Citation omitted.) 2 3 Swarthout, 2011 WL 197627, *2. The Court concluded that the petitioners had received the due 4 process to which they were due: 5 6 7 They were allowed to speak at their parole hearings and to contest the evidence against them, were afforded access to their records in advance, and were notified as to the reasons why parole was denied... That should have been the beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’ inquiry into whether [the petitioners] received due process. 8 9 Swarthout, 2011 WL 197627, *3. The Court went on to expressly point out that California’s “some 10 evidence” rule is not a substantive federal requirement, and correct application of the State’s “some 11 evidence” standard is not required by the federal Due Process Clause. Id. at *3. The Supreme Court 12 emphasized that “the responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally adequate procedures 13 governing California’s parole system are properly applied rests with California courts, and is no part 14 of the Ninth Circuit’s business.” Id. 15 Swarthout forecloses any claim premised upon California’s “some evidence” rule because 16 this Court cannot entertain substantive due process claims related to a state’s application of its own 17 laws. Here, the claims in the petition sound exclusively in substantive due process and are therefore 18 foreclosed by Swarthout. Review of the record for “some evidence” or for a “nexus” between 19 present dangerousness and certain indicia or reliance upon the circumstances of the commitment 20 offense to support denial of parole are simply not within the scope of this Court’s habeas review 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Accordingly, those claims should be summarily dismissed. 22 Moreover, to the extent that these claims rest solely on state law, they are not cognizable on 23 federal habeas corpus. Federal habeas relief is not available to retry a state issue that does not rise to 24 the level of a federal constitutional violation. Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 13, 16 25 (2010); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475 (1991). Alleged errors in the 26 application of state law are not cognizable in feeral habeas corpus. Souch v. Schiavo, 289 F.3d 616, 27 623 (9th Cir. 2002). Indeed, federal courts are bound by state court rulings on questions of state law. 28 Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942 (1989). U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 5 1 B. Procedural Due Process 2 Petitioner has neither claimed nor established a violation of his federal right to procedural 3 due process. Petitioner has included a transcript of the BPH hearing. (Doc. 1, p. 61 et seq.). From 4 that transcript, it is clear that Petitioner was present at the BPH hearing, that he had an opportunity to 5 be heard, and that Petitioner received a statement of the Board’s reasons for denying parole. (Doc. 6 1, p. 1; pp. 163-203).2 7 According to the Supreme Court, this is “the beginning and the end of the federal habeas 8 courts’ inquiry into whether [the prisoner] received due process.” Swarthout, 2011 WL 197627. 9 “The Constitution does not require more [process].” Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16. Therefore, the 10 instant petition does not present cognizable claims for relief and must be summarily dismissed. 11 12 RECOMMENDATION For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for 13 writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), be SUMMARILY DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon 14 which federal habeas relief can be granted. 15 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 16 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of 17 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 18 Within twenty (20) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with 19 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 20 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and 21 filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 22 The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 23 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 24 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: February 24, 2011 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2 Petitioner voluntarily waived his right to be represented by counsel at the BPH hearing. (Doc. 1, pp. 64-65). U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia 6
]]>
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.
