(HC) Tran v. Wofford, No. 1:2013cv02012 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition (Doc. 1 ) be DISMISSED Without Leave to Amend for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim and ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign District Court Judge to the Present Matter signed by Magi strate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/10/2013. This case has been assigned to District Judge Anthony W. Ishii and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. The new case number is 1:13-cv-02012-AWI-MJS (HC). Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 1:13-cv-02012 MJS HC THO TRAN, 12 v. 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO Petitioner, DISMISS PETITION WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM (Doc. 1) 14 15 WOFFORD, Warden, 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO Respondent. THE PRESENT MATTER 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 I. DISCUSSION 21 A. 22 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part: 23 24 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. 25 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a 26 petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the 27 respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See 28 Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2001). Allegations in a petition that are vague, Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal 1 1 conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. 2 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). A petition for habeas corpus should not be 3 dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can 4 be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 5 B. 6 On December 9, 2013, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas 7 corpus. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner challenges the decision of the Board of Parole 8 Hearings (“Board”) finding him unsuitable for parole. Petitioner claims the Board and the 9 California courts unreasonably determined that there was some evidence he posed a 10 Factual Summary current risk of danger to the public if released. 11 C. Federal Review of State Parole Decisions 12 Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the effective date of the 13 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies in 14 this proceeding. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 138 L. Ed. 2d 481 15 (1997); Furman v. Wood, 190 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). 16 A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in 17 custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that the custody is 18 in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 19 2254(a), 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 n.7, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. 20 Ed. 2d 389 (2000); Wilson v. Corcoran, 131 S.Ct. 13, 16, 178 L. Ed. 2d 276 (2010). 21 The Supreme Court has characterized as reasonable the decision of the Court of 22 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that California law creates a liberty interest in parole 23 protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, which in turn requires fair 24 procedures with respect to the liberty interest. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 861- 25 62, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (2011). 26 However, the procedures required for a parole determination are the minimal 27 requirements set forth in Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 28 442 U.S. 1, 12, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1979). Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862. In 2 1 Swarthout, the Court rejected inmates' claims that they were denied a liberty interest 2 because there was an absence of "some evidence" to support the decision to deny 3 parole. The Court stated: 4 9 There is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners. (Citation omitted.) When, however, a State creates a liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires fair procedures for its vindication-and federal courts will review the application of those constitutionally required procedures. In the context of parole, we have held that the procedures required are minimal. In Greenholtz, we found that a prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to California's received adequate process when he was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. (Citation omitted.) 10 Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862. The Court concluded that the petitioners had received the 11 process that was due as follows: 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 They were allowed to speak at their parole hearings and to contest the evidence against them, were afforded access to their records in advance, and were notified as to the reasons why parole was denied.... That should have been the beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts' inquiry into whether [the petitioners] received due process. 16 Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862. The Court in Swarthout expressly noted that California's 17 "some evidence" rule is not a substantive federal requirement, and correct application of 18 California's "some evidence" standard is not required by the Federal Due Process 19 Clause. Id. at 862-63. This is true regardless whether Petitioner is challenging a decision 20 by the Board to deny parole or the Governor's reversal of a parole grant. Swarthout, 131 21 S. Ct. at 860-61; Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) ("[w]e now hold 22 that the Due Process Clause does not require that the Governor hold a second suitability 23 hearing before reversing a parole decision."). 24 Here, Petitioner argues that the Board failed to take into account mitigating 25 circumstances, specifically Petitioner's young age in committing the life crime, in 26 determining his suitability. (Pet. at 4-8.) In so arguing, Petitioner asks this Court to 27 engage in the very type of analysis foreclosed by Swarthout. In this regard, Petitioner 28 does not state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error or that otherwise 3 1 would entitle Petitioner to habeas relief because California's "some evidence" 2 requirement is not a substantive federal requirement. Review of the record for "some 3 evidence" to support the denial of parole is not within the scope of this Court's habeas 4 review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court concludes that Petitioner's claim concerning 5 the evidence supporting the unsuitability finding should be dismissed. 6 Although Petitioner asserts that his right to due process of law was violated by the 7 Board's decision, Petitioner does not set forth any specific facts concerning his 8 attendance at the parole hearing, his opportunity to be heard, or his receipt of a 9 statement of reasons for the parole decision. Petitioner has not alleged facts pointing to 10 a real possibility of a violation of the minimal requirements of due process set forth in 11 Greenholtz, 442 U.S. 1. 12 A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend 13 unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave 14 granted. Jarvis, 440 F.2d at 14. Here, the Court concludes that it would be futile to grant 15 Petitioner leave to amend his first claim, and recommends the petition to be dismissed. 16 II. CONCLUSION 17 Although Petitioner asserts that his right to due process of law was violated by the 18 Board's decision, Petitioner does not set forth any specific facts concerning his 19 attendance at the parole hearing, his opportunity to be heard, or his receipt of a 20 statement of reasons for the parole decision. Petitioner has not alleged facts pointing to 21 a real possibility of a violation of the minimal requirements of due process set forth in 22 Greenholtz, 442 U.S. 1. Petitioner's argument that the decision to deny Petitioner parole 23 violated California's "some evidence" rule is not subject to federal review. See 24 Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862-63. The Court concludes that it would be futile to grant 25 Petitioner leave to amend and that the Petition be dismissed. 26 III. 27 28 RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition be DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 4 1 2 Further, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Court Judge to the present matter. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 5 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 6 Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any 7 party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 8 document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 9 Recommendations." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 10 (14) days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court 11 will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 12 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 13 right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: 23 December 10, 2013 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 24 Michael J. Seng ci4d6 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
