Walker v. Grounds, No. 4:2010cv02234 - Document 9 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 5 MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 8/12/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Walker v. Grounds Doc. 9 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 GREGORY A. WALKER, No. C 10-02234 CW (PR) 4 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY Petitioner, 5 v. 6 7 RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, 8 Respondent. / 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed this pro se petition 11 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 12 challenging as a violation of his constitutional rights the denial 13 of parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings (Board) on 14 July 8, 2008. 15 16 In an Order dated June 24, 2010, the Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 17 On August 30, 2010, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the 18 petition. 19 Respondent filed a reply. 20 Petitioner filed an opposition to the motion and For the reasons discussed below, Respondent's motion will be 21 granted. 22 A. 23 Petitioner's Claim A federal district court may entertain a petition for a writ 24 of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the 25 judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody 26 in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 27 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In his petition, Petitioner states he was denied parole on 2 July 8, 2008, and that the reasons for the denial were "the nature 3 of the commitment offense; the psychological report; institutional 4 behavior, and that parole plans were unrealistic." 5 Attached Page Claim One.) 6 federal habeas corpus relief on the following grounds: (Pet. at He then argues that he is entitled to 7 Under the State and Federal Constitutions, Petitioner has a right to due process of law in parole matters. Here, the Board failed to explicitly state the nexus between the cited factor or factors and the ultimate decision of current dangerousness. The Board fails to meet its affirmative obligation and due process rights/duties applicable to the conduct of the hearing. As a matter of California Law, the Board must articulate a rational nexus between its factual findings and conclusions. Thereby, the nexus test must be affirmatively applied and articulated by the Board in the first instance. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 Id. 14 Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on three alternative 15 grounds: the petition does not meet the pleading requirements of 16 Rules 2 and 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases because 17 Petitioner fails to specify the grounds for relief and to plead his 18 claims with particularity; the petition fails to state a federal 19 claim for habeas relief; and the petition is unexhausted because 20 Petitioner did not present his federal constitutional claim to the 21 California Supreme Court. 22 In his opposition, Petitioner responds that the petition 23 should proceed because he has alleged the same operative facts as 24 in his state petition, the facts show there was not "some evidence" 25 to support the denial of parole, and Ninth Circuit law requires 26 that habeas relief be granted under such circumstances. 27 28 2 1 Federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable for an error of 2 state law. 3 (2011). 4 a liberty or property interest that is entitled to the protections 5 of federal due process. 6 constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be 7 conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence,” 8 Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 9 1, 7 (1979), a state’s statutory parole scheme, if it uses Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 861 (per curiam) Under certain circumstances, however, state law may create In particular, while there is “no United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 mandatory language, may create a presumption that parole release 11 will be granted when, or unless, certain designated findings are 12 made, and thereby give rise to a constitutionally protected liberty 13 interest. 14 California law creates such a liberty interest in release on 15 parole. 16 See id. at 11-12. The Ninth Circuit has determined Cooke, 131 S. Ct. at 861-62. When a state creates a liberty interest, the Due Process 17 Clause requires fair procedures for its vindication, and federal 18 courts will review the application of those constitutionally 19 required procedures. 20 procedures necessary to vindicate such an interest are minimal: a 21 prisoner receives adequate process when “he [is] allowed an 22 opportunity to be heard and [is] provided a statement of the 23 reasons why parole was denied.” 24 that the Constitution does not require more. 25 Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Cooke was unequivocal 26 in holding that if an inmate seeking parole receives an opportunity 27 to be heard, a notification of the reasons as to denial of parole, 28 and access to their records in advance, that should be the Id. at 862. In the context of parole, the Id. 3 The Supreme Court has held Id.; see Pearson v. 1 beginning and end of the inquiry into whether the inmate received 2 due process.”) (alterations, internal quotation and citation 3 omitted). 4 In the instant action, Petitioner has never maintained that he was denied an opportunity to speak at his hearing and contest the 6 evidence against him, that he was denied access to his record in 7 advance, or that he was not notified of the reasons why parole was 8 denied. 9 petition, and expanded upon by Petitioner in his opposition to the 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 5 motion to dismiss, is that the Board's decision was not supported 11 by "some evidence." 12 Petitioner has failed to present a constitutionally cognizable claim 13 for the denial of due process. 14 the petition for failure to state a claim for federal habeas relief 15 is GRANTED. 16 court’s pre-Cooke grant of habeas relief on petitioner’s “some 17 evidence” claim; finding no further due process inquiry required 18 because petitioner had never argued he was not provided the 19 procedures set forth in Cooke). 20 B. 21 Rather, the only argument raised by Petitioner in the As Cooke clearly forecloses such a claim, Consequently, the motion to dismiss See Pearson, 639 F.3d at 1191 (reversing district Certificate of Appealability A certificate of appealability is denied with respect to 22 Petitioner's claim. 23 Habeas Corpus Cases Under § 2254, Rule 11 (requiring district court 24 to issue or deny certificate of appealability when entering final 25 order adverse to petitioner). 26 to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 27 right, as he has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); Rules Governing Specifically, Petitioner has failed 28 4 1 find the Court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable 2 or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 5 1. 6 Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim for federal habeas relief is GRANTED. 7 2. 8 The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of 9 A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Respondent, terminate all pending motions, and close the file. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 This Order terminates Docket no. 5. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 8/12/2011 13 CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 GREGORY A. WALKER, Case Number: CV10-02234 CW 4 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 5 v. 6 RANDY GROUNDS et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on August 12, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 13 14 17 Gregory A. Walker D-12881 2-330L Correctional Training Facility P.O. Box 689 Soledad, CA 93960 18 Dated: August 12, 2011 15 16 19 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
