Owens v. Grounds et al
Filing
4
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 8/9/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
STEVEN L. OWENS,
11
Petitioner,
12
v.
13
14
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,
15
Respondent.
No. C 12-2017 RMW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
16
17
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
18
28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ (“Board”) finding that
19
petitioner was unsuitable for parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. For the reasons stated
20
below, the court DISMISSES the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.
21
22
23
DISCUSSION
A.
Standard of Review
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
24
custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in
25
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose
26
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).
27
28
A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show
cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.12\Owens017disparole.wpd
1
applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
2
B.
3
Petitioner’s Claims
As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner alleges that the Board found petitioner
4
unsuitable for parole based solely on the commitment offense, and ignored other relevant
5
information. In essence, petitioner alleges that his right to due process was violated.
6
This fails to state a federal constitutional claim. Despite petitioner’s belief that he has a
7
federal liberty interest in release, the Supreme Court has made clear that a prisoner’s federal due
8
process claim regarding a denial of parole is limited to whether he received the minimum
9
procedures necessary under the federal constitution. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862
10
(2011) (per curiam). Specifically, this court’s inquiry is limited to whether petitioner was given
11
an opportunity to be heard, and given a statement of reasons for the denial. Id. (citing
12
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979).
13
Petitioner’s exhibits demonstrate that he was given those minimum protections. Thus,
14
petitioner’s allegations fail to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. See id.
15
To the extent petitioner claims that the denial of parole violated his right to equal
16
protection, he fails to support his claim. Nonetheless, “[t]he Equal Protection Clause of the
17
Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction
18
the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly
19
situated should be treated alike.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439
20
(1985). To prevail on his equal protection claim, petitioner must show he is a member of a class
21
that was denied a benefit available to other similarly situated individuals, and that such denial
22
was not rationally related to legitimate state interests. See Mayner v. Callahan, 873 F.2d 1300,
23
1302 (9th Cir. 1989) (applying rational basis test to prisoner’s claim of unequal application of
24
parole consideration criteria). He has not done so. All inmates applying for parole are not
25
similarly situated. See Houtz v. Deland, 718 F. Supp. 1497, 1501-02 (D. Utah 1989) (citing
26
Sweazea v. Missouri Bd. of Probation & Parole, 742 F.2d 482, 483 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam)).
27
Rather, parole decisions, by their very nature, require a parole board to look at the individual
28
circumstances of each prisoner and his crimes. Id. at 1501. Under California law, the Board is
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.12\Owens017disparole.wpd
2
1
required to review the specific facts of each case and to make an individualized determination as
2
to whether a prisoner is suitable for parole. See In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221 (2008);
3
see also In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1083-84 (2005) (holding determination whether
4
inmate poses current danger not dependent upon whether commitment offense was more or less
5
egregious than other similar crimes). Here, it is clear from the record that the Board made an
6
individualized determination as to petitioner’s suitability for parole, and did not deny parole by
7
comparing petitioner to other prisoners. Accordingly, the court finds petitioner has not stated an
8
equal protection claim, and this claim will be dismissed.
9
10
11
CONCLUSION
This case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The clerk shall close the file and
enter judgment in this matter.
12
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
13
A certificate of appealability will not issue. Reasonable jurists would not “find the
14
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,
15
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Court of
16
Appeal.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.12\Owens017disparole.wpd
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STEVEN L. OWENS,
Case Number: CV12-02017 RMW
Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
RANDY GROUNDS et al,
Defendant.
/
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 9, 2012, 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.
Steven L. Owens D-23886
CTF-Soledad
P.O. Box 689
B.W.-242-Low
Soledad, CA 93960-0689
Dated: August 9, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk
]]>
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?
