(HC) Coffin v. Haviland, No. 2:2009cv01556 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/7/11 recommending that 13 MOTION to DISMISS be denied. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF

(HC) Coffin v. Haviland Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM COFFIN, Petitioner, 11 vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-09-1556 FCD EFB GARY SWARTHOUT1, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondent. 14 / 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas 16 17 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moves to dismiss on the grounds that the 18 petition fails to state a cognizable claim. For the reasons that follow, the court concludes that the 19 motion to dismiss must be denied. 20 I. 21 Background Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of 25 years-to-life in California State prison. 22 Pet. at 1. He challenges the November 28, 2007 decision by the California Board of Parole 23 Hearings (“the Board”) to deny him parole. Id. at 4-18. He argues that the decision was 24 unsupported by “some evidence” that petitioner poses a current risk of danger to society and thus 25 1 26 Gary Swarthout is substituted as respondent. See Rule 2(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings; Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 deprived him of due process and that the decision constituted a breach of his plea agreement. Id. 2 II. 3 Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss containing a two-paragraph legal argument 4 which asserts that, under Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), 5 petitioner lacks a right to “some evidence” of current dangerousness protected by the federal 6 Constitution. Thus, respondent argues, the petition fails to state a claim cognizable in a federal 7 petition for writ of habeas corpus because the issue is purely one of state law, citing Estelle v. 8 McGuire, 502 U.S. 52 (1991). Respondent does not address petitioner’s additional claim that the 9 parole denial constituted a breach of his plea agreement. 10 In Hayward, the Ninth Circuit held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 11 Amendment “does not, by itself, entitle a prisoner to parole in the absence of some evidence of 12 future dangerousness.” 603 F.3d at 561 (italics added). The court quickly noted, however, that 13 state statutes can create liberty interests that are protected under the Due Process Clause. Id.; see 14 generally Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005) (“A liberty interest may arise from the 15 Constitution itself, by reason of guarantees implicit in the word ‘liberty,’ [citation], or it may 16 arise from an expectation or interest created by state laws or policies [citation].”). Finding that 17 California’s parole statue gives rise to such an interest, the court then expressly held that, in 18 cases challenging denials of parole in California, the relevant question for the court is “whether 19 the California judicial decision approving the [parole denial] was an ‘unreasonable application’ 20 [citation] of the California ‘some evidence’ requirement, or was ‘based on an unreasonable 21 determination of the facts in light of the evidence’ [citation].” Hayward, 603 F.3d at 562-63; see 22 also Pearson v. Muntz, 606 F.3d 606, 608 (9th Cir. 2010); Cooke v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206, 1213 23 (9th Cir. 2010). 24 As the Ninth Circuit has subsequently noted, in concluding that federal habeas courts 25 must determine whether a California court’s approval of a parole denial was an unreasonable 26 application of the “some evidence” requirement or was based on an unreasonable determination 2 1 of the facts, “Hayward necessarily held that compliance with the state requirement is mandated 2 by federal law, specifically the Due Process Clause.” Pearson, 606 F.3d at 609. Thus, the Ninth 3 Circuit has made it clear that California state court determinations upholding parole denials are 4 cognizable via federal petitions for writs of habeas corpus, because California state law provides 5 California prisoners with a liberty interest in parole absent “some evidence” of current 6 dangerousness. Id.; see also Cooke, 606 F.3d at 1213; Hayward, 603 F.3d at 561-64. 7 Respondent advances no other argument for dismissal of the petition, in whole or in part. 8 III. 9 Conclusion Respondent’s motion to dismiss is based on the erroneous premise that petitioner lacks a 10 right protected by the federal Constitution to a determination of parole suitability based on 11 “some evidence.” As the caselaw relied on by petitioner holds the opposite, the motion to 12 dismiss must be denied. 13 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s May 10, 2010 motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 13, be denied. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 17 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 20 shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 21 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 22 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 Dated: January 7, 2011. 24 25 26 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.