(HC) Bowden v. Clark, No. 1:2009cv01844 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/23/2009, Regarding Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus re 1 . Matter referred to Judge O'Neill. (Objections to F&R due by 11/25/2009) (Figueroa, O)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Bowden v. Clark Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RUSSELL A. BOWDEN, 10 11 1:09-cv-01844-LJO-SMS (HC) Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 12 [Doc. 1] KEN CLARK, 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 BACKGROUND 18 Petitioner is currently in the Custody of the California Department of Corrections and 19 Rehabilitation pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 20 following his conviction by jury trial on March 25, 1987, of murder in violation of California 21 Penal Code section 187. (Petition, at 2.) Petitioner was sentenced to serve an indeterminate term 22 of fifteen years to life in state prison with the possibility of parole. Id. 23 Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on October 21, 24 2009. Petitioner contends that he is being falsely imprisoned because the Department of 25 Corrections has failed to release him on his maximum release date of November 14, 2000. 26 (Petition, at 4.) 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 DISCUSSION A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal 3 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part: 4 5 If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. 6 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ 7 of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 8 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A petition for habeas corpus should not 9 be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be 10 pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 11 B. 12 Failure to State a Cognizable Claim The instant petition is reviewed under the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective 13 Death Penalty Act which became effective on April 24, 1996. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 14 70 (2003). Under the AEDPA, an application for habeas corpus will not be granted unless the 15 adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 16 unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court 17 of the United States” or “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination 18 of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2254(d); see Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 70-71; see Williams, 529 U.S. at 413. 20 A parole release determination is not subject to all the due process protections of an 21 adversary proceeding. Pedro v. Oregon Parole Board, 825 F.2d 1396, 1398-99 (9th Cir. 1987); see 22 also Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 12 (1979) 23 (explaining that due process is flexible and calls for procedural protections that particular 24 situations demand). "[S]ince the setting of a minimum term is not part of a criminal prosecution, 25 the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding is not constitutionally mandated, 26 even when a protected liberty interest exists." Pedro, 825 F.2d at 1399; Jancsek v. Oregon Bd. of 27 Parole, 833 F.2d 1389, 1390 (9th Cir.1987). At a state parole board proceeding, an inmate is 28 guaranteed the following process: 1) the inmate must receive advance written notice of a hearing, 2 1 Pedro, 825 F.2d at 1399; 2) the inmate must be afforded an "opportunity to be heard," 2 Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16; and 3) if the inmate is denied parole, the inmate must be told why 3 "he falls short of qualifying for parole.” Id. Petitioner does not dispute that he received these 4 procedural rights. 5 “In Superintendent, Mass. Correc. Inst. v. Hill, the Supreme Court held that ‘revocation 6 of good time does not comport with ‘the minimum requirements of procedural due process,’ 7 unless the findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the 8 record.’ 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985), quoting Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974).” 9 Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir.2006) (emphasis added). 10 The Ninth Circuit has held that this same standard also extends to parole determinations. Irons v. 11 Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir.2007), quoting Hill, 472 U.S. at 457 (“We have held that ‘the 12 Supreme Court ha[s] clearly established that a parole board’s decision deprives a prisoner of due 13 process with respect to this interest if the board’s decision is not supported by ‘some evidence in 14 the record,’ or is ‘otherwise arbitrary.’”). 15 In this case, Petitioner argues that the Department of Corrections has failed to release him 16 on his maximum release date of November 14, 2000, and as a result he is being falsely 17 imprisoned. These claims are not cognizable on federal habeas, because Petitioner does not 18 contend that the decision of the parole board - that Petitioner poses an unreasonable risk of 19 danger to the public if released - was not supported by at least some evidence. In other words, he 20 makes no claim that the parole board failed to provide him with his minimum due process 21 protections. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. 22 RECOMMENDATION 23 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 24 1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED; and, 25 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate this action in its entirety. 26 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 27 Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of 28 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 3 1 Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with 2 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 3 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served 4 and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the 5 objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 7 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 8 Cir. 1991). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: icido3 October 23, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
