(HC) Argon v. CDCR et al, No. 2:2016cv02826 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/14/16 ORDERING that petitioner's request for unspecified relief (ECF No. 3 ) is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the pris oner complaint form used in this district. It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. No certificate of appealability shall issue. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF

(HC) Argon v. CDCR et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO ARGON, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-2826 WBS AC P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDCR, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 17 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Petitioner has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the required filing fee. See 21 22 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). However, the court will not assess a filing fee at this time. 23 Instead, the undersigned will recommend summary dismissal of the petition. 24 25 II. Petitioner’s Allegations Petitioner challenges a July 2015 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings (Board), 26 denying him parole. ECF No. 1 at 1. He asserts that his due process rights were violated when 27 the Board failed to make an impartial decision because he had filed a 602 appeal. Id. at 5. 28 Petitioner also contends that the Board erred in finding he had insufficient credibility, did not 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 have an appropriate attitude towards the crime, had instances of serious institutional misconduct, 2 and had insufficient institutional programming. Id. at 7-12. 3 III. Discussion 4 Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules requires the court to summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f 5 it plainly appears from the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled 6 to relief in the district court.” As set forth below, the petition fails to state a cognizable claim for 7 relief and will be dismissed. 8 The United States Supreme Court in 2011 overruled a line of Ninth Circuit precedent that 9 had supported habeas review of parole denials in California cases. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 10 216, 219 (2011). The Supreme Court held that federal habeas jurisdiction does not extend to 11 review of the evidentiary basis for state parole decisions. Id. Because habeas relief is not 12 available for errors of state law, and because the Due Process Clause does not require correct 13 application of California’s “some evidence” standard for denial of parole, federal courts may not 14 intervene in parole decisions as long as minimum procedural protections are provided. Id. at 219- 15 20. The protection afforded by the federal Due Process Clause to California parole decisions 16 consists solely of the “minimum” procedural requirements set forth in Greenholtz v. Inmates of 17 Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979). Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220. Specifically, that 18 petitioner was provided with “an opportunity to be heard and . . . a statement of the reasons why 19 parole was denied.” Id. (citing Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16). 20 The transcript attached to the petition make clear that petitioner was present at the hearing, 21 represented by counsel, afforded an interpreter, and provided a statement of the reasons parole 22 was denied. ECF No. 1 at 58-185. “[T]he beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’ 23 inquiry” is whether petitioner received “the minimum procedures adequate for due-process 24 protection.” Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220. The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that after Cooke, 25 substantive challenges to parole decisions are not cognizable in habeas. Roberts v. Hartley, 640 26 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011). Petitioner received all the process he was due and his challenge 27 to the denial of parole is therefore not cognizable. 28 Petitioner has also filed a letter in which he appears to make allegations that correctional 2 1 officers are retaliating against him for filing this petition and he requests unspecified relief. ECF 2 No. 3. Petitioner is advised that claims concerning the conditions of his confinement and 3 violations of his constitutional rights are properly raised in a civil rights complaint filed pursuant 4 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a remedy for violations of civil rights by state actors. 5 Therefore, petitioner must bring these claims in a civil rights action after the inmate grievance 6 process has been properly exhausted. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Petitioner’s request for unspecified relief (ECF No. 3) is denied. 9 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a copy of the prisoner complaint 10 form used in this district. 11 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. 13 2. No certificate of appealability shall issue. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 17 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 18 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 19 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 20 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 DATED: December 14, 2016 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.