-SMS (HC) Hinson v. Hartley, No. 1:2011cv01206 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 9/22/2011 recommending that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by George Hinson be DENIED. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 10/27/2011. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

-SMS (HC) Hinson v. Hartley Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GEORGE HINSON, 10 11 1:11-cv-01206-AWI-SMS (HC) Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 12 JAMES D. HARTLEY, [Doc. 1] 13 Respondent. 14 / 15 Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 16 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 21, 2011. Petitioner 18 attached a copy of the September 21, 2009, decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings. 19 Petitioner claims the California courts unreasonably determined that there was some evidence he 20 posed a current risk of danger to the public if released. 21 On August 10, 2011, the Court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not 22 be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a response on September 12, 2011. 23 DISCUSSION 24 Because California’s statutory parole scheme guarantees that prisoners will not be denied 25 parole absent some evidence of present dangerousness, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held 26 that California law creates a liberty interest in parole that may be enforced under the Due Process 27 Clause. Hayward v. Marshall, 602 F.3d 546, 561-563 (9th Cir. 2010); Pearson v. Muntz, 606 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 F.3d 606, 608-609 (9th Cir. 2010); Cooke v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206, 1213 (2010), rev’d, Swarthout 2 v. Cooke, ___ U.S.___, 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011). The Ninth Circuit instructed reviewing federal 3 district courts to determine whether California’s application of California’s “some evidence” rule 4 was unreasonable or was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 5 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. 6 7 Cooke, ___ U.S.___, 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011). In Swarthout, the Supreme Court held that “the 8 responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s 9 parole system are properly applied rests with California courts, and is no part of the Ninth 10 Circuit’s business.” Id. at 863. The federal habeas court’s inquiry into whether a prisoner denied 11 parole received due process is limited to determining whether the prisoner “was allowed an 12 opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Id. 13 at 862, citing, Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 14 (1979). Review of the instant case reveals Petitioner was present at his parole hearing, was given 15 an opportunity to be heard, and was provided a statement of reasons for the parole board’s 16 decision. (See ECF No. 6, Ex. A.) Per the Supreme Court, this is “the beginning and the end of 17 the federal habeas courts’ inquiry into whether [the prisoner] received due process.” Swarthout, 18 131 S.Ct. at 862. “The Constitution does not require more [process].” Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 19 16. Therefore, the instant petition does not present cognizable claims for relief and should be 20 denied. 21 Petitioner argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout was contrary to other 22 controlling federal law and asks this Court to reconsider or not follow its holding. This Court is 23 bound to follow the holdings issued by the United States Supreme Court. See Hutto v. Davis, 24 454 U.S. 370, 375 (1982). 25 26 27 28 RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED with prejudice. This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 2 1 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 2 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 3 Within thirty (30) days after date of service of this Findings and Recommendation, any party may 4 file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 5 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the 6 Objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after date of service of the 7 Objections. The Finding and Recommendation will then be submitted to the District Court for 8 review of the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 9 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 10 Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: icido3 September 22, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.