Zagala v. Haviland
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 06/22/11 ordering this action is summarily dismissed. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MATTHEW ZAGALA,
12
13
14
15
No. CIV S-11-0807-CMK-P
Petitioner,
vs.
ORDER
JOHN W. HAVILAND,
Respondent.
16
/
17
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of
18
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of parole. Petitioner has
19
consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has
20
been served or appeared in the action. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for a writ
21
of habeas corpus (Doc. 1).
22
23
24
25
26
On May 11, 2011, the court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why
this action should not be summarily dismissed. In that order the court stated:
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears
from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the instant case,
it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. Reversing
1
1
the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th
Cir. 2010) (en banc), the United States Supreme Court recently observed:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Whatever liberty interest exists [in parole] is, of course, a
state interest. There is no right under the Federal Constitution to
be conditionally released [on parole] before the expiration of a
valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to offer parole to
their prisoners. Id. at 7. 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. . . .
Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (9th Cir.
2011) (per curiam) (citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal
and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979)) (emphasis in
original).
9
The Court held:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
. . . In the context of parole, we have held that the
procedures required are minimal. In Greenholtz, we found that a
prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to California’s received
adequate process when he was allowed an opportunity to be heard
and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was
denied. 442 U.S. at 16. “The Constitution,” we held, “does not
require more.” Ibid. Cooke and Clay received at least this amount
of process: 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. (citations omitted). That should have been the
beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’ inquiry into
whether Cook and Clay received due process. . . .
17
Id.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The Court added that “[n]o opinion of ours supports converting
California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement”
and “. . . it is no federal concern . . . whether California’s ‘some evidence’
rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution
demands) was correctly applied” because “a ‘mere error of state law’ is not
a denial of due process.” Id. at 862-63 (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S.
107, 121, n.21 (1982)). Thus, in cases challenging the denial of parole, the
only issue subject to federal habeas review is whether the inmate received
the procedural due process protections of notice and an opportunity to be
heard. There is no other clearly established federal constitutional right in
the context of parole.
Here, to the extent petitioner claims that the decision to
deny parole was not based on “some evidence” or otherwise failed to
satisfy substantive due process, the claim is foreclosed as a matter of law
because there is no clearly established federal constitutional substantive
due process right in parole. To the extent petitioner claims that he was not
2
1
provided the minimal procedural due process protections of notice and an
opportunity to be heard, the petition must be denied because it is clear on
the face of the petition and documents attached thereto that petitioner was
provided the minimum procedural protections guaranteed by the federal
constitution.
2
3
4
Petitioner was warned that failure to respond to the order to show cause could result in dismissal
5
of the action for the reasons stated in the order as well as for lack of prosecution. To date,
6
plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause and the court concludes that summary
7
dismissal of the petition is appropriate for the reasons outlined above. \
8
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the
9
court has considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Before petitioner can appeal
10
this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.
11
22(b). Where the petition is denied on the merits, a certificate of appealability may issue under
12
28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
13
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of
14
appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why
15
such a certificate should not issue. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is dismissed
16
on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1)
17
‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
18
procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
19
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775,
20
780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)).
21
For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that issuance of a certificate of appealability is not
22
warranted in this case.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
3
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
This action is summarily dismissed;
3
2.
The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and
4
3.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.
5
6
7
8
DATED: June 22, 2011
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
