(HC) Hinson v. Hartley, No. 1:2009cv01293 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending That the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED; and The Clerk of Court be Directed to Enter Judgment in Favor of Respondent, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 3/10/2011, referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 4/14/2011. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Hinson v. Hartley Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GEORGE HINSON, 10 11 1:09-cv-01293-AWI-SMS (HC) Petitioner, SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 12 [Doc. 15] JAMES D. HARTLEY, 13 Respondent. 14 / 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 24, 2009. Petitioner 18 challenges Governor Schwarzenegger’s February 22, 2007, decision reversing the California 19 Board of Parole Hearings’ 2006 finding that Petitioner was suitable for release. 20 On March 24, 2010, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendation to deny the 21 petition for writ of habeas corpus and enter judgment in favor of Respondent. Petitioner filed 22 objections on April 6, 2010, and supplemental objections on April 15, 2010. 23 On February 8, 2011, the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, referred the petition back to the 24 undersigned to address the potential impact of the Supreme Court’s January 24, 2011 decision in 25 Swarthout v. Cooke, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011) on his claim that the Governor exceeded 26 his authority resulting in a due process violation. 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 DISCUSSION The Federal Constitution does not create a right to be conditionally released prior to the 3 expiration of a valid sentence. However, “a state’s statutory scheme, if it uses mandatory 4 language, ‘creates a presumption that parole release will be granted’ when or unless certain 5 designated findings are made, and thereby gives rise to a constitutional liberty interest.” 6 Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal, 442 U.S. 1, 12 (1979). California’s parole statutes allow 7 the Board of Prison Hearings to release inmates on parole unless there is “some evidence” of the 8 inmates current dangerousness. In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1205-1206 (2008). The 9 Board’s decision may be affirmed, modified or reversed by the Governor within thirty days, Cal. 10 Penal Code § 3041.2, “on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority is required to 11 consider,” set forth in a report, “stating the pertinent facts and reasons for the action.” Cal. 12 Const. art. V, § 8(b). 13 In Swarthout v. Cooke, the United States Supreme Court held that “[n]o opinion of 14 [theirs] supports converting California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal 15 requirement.” Swarthout, 131 S.Ct at 862. Therefore, federal courts are precluded from 16 reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support the parole board’s decision. Id. Rather, this 17 Court’s review of parole determinations is limited to whether the “minimal” procedural 18 protections set forth in Greenholtz were meet, that is “an opportunity to be heard and a statement 19 of the reasons why parole was denied.” Id. at 862. 20 In this case, Petitioner was present with counsel at the October 3, 2006 parole hearing, he 21 was afforded access to his record in advance, he was allowed to participate in the hearing, and 22 although the Board found him eligible for parole, Governor Schwarzenegger after considering the 23 same factors as the Board, namely, the circumstances of the commitment offense, prior criminal 24 history, institutional behavior, vocational training, self-help programming, family support and 25 parole plans, simply disagreed in a statement of reasons that such factors indicated he no longer 26 remained an unreasonable risk to public safety if released. (See Pet. Ex. E.) Pursuant to the 27 Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout, federal due process requires no more. Therefore, 28 Petitioner’s claim the Governor exceeded his authority resulting in a due process violation is 2 1 without merit. 2 RECOMMENDATION 3 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. The instant petition for writ of habeas be DENIED; and 5 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in favor of Respondent. 6 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 7 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 8 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 9 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with 10 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served 12 and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The Court will then review the 13 Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 14 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 15 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 March 10, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 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.
