-CHS (HC) Saunders v. Carey, No. 2:2006cv00734 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER VACATING 11 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 2/2/11. (Manzer, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-CHS (HC) Saunders v. Carey Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THOMAS EUGENE SAUNDERS, Petitioner, 11 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-06-734 MCE CHS P TOM L. CAREY, 14 Respondent. ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 / 16 17 Petitioner Saunders, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a 2004 decision by former 19 Governor Schwarzenegger reversing a 2003 decision of the state parole authority that he was 20 suitable for parole. On February 20, 2009, findings and recommendations issued herein, 21 recommending that the petition be granted. On May 29, 2009, the action was administratively 22 stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 562 (9th Cir. 23 2010) (en banc). The Hayward decision was filed on April 22, 2010, and subsequently abrogated 24 by the United States Supreme Court. See Swarthout v. Cooke, No. 10-333 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2011) 25 (per curiam). In light of these developments, the administrative stay was lifted in the court’s 26 order of January 29, 2011. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In Hayward v. Marshall, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2 directed “courts in this circuit [to] decide whether the California judicial decision approving the 3 governor’s decision rejecting parole was an ‘unreasonable application’ of the California ‘some 4 evidence’ requirement, or was ‘based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of 5 the evidence.’” Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 562-63 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). 6 Subsequently, however, in Swarthout v. Cooke, No. 10-333, slip op. at 4-5 (U.S. January 24, 7 2011), the United States Supreme Court held that a federal court’s inquiry into whether an inmate 8 in California received due process in the context of a parole suitability hearing is strictly 9 procedural. Id. at 6. That is, federal courts must not review parole decisions in California for 10 compliance with the state’s “some evidence” requirement. Rather, under federally protected law, 11 an inmate is only entitled to an opportunity to be heard and a decision informing him of the 12 reasons he did not qualify for parole. See Swarthout, slip op. at 4-5 (citing Greenholtz, 442 U.S. 13 at 16). 14 In light of this new controlling Supreme Court authority, IT IS HEREBY 15 ORDERED THAT the pending findings and recommendations of February 20, 2009 are 16 VACATED. New findings and recommendations will issue shortly; respondent’s pending 17 motion to dismiss will be addressed therein. 18 DATED: February 2, 2011 19 20 CHARLENE H. SORRENTINO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
