-KJN (TEMP)(HC) Ventura v. Sisto et al, No. 2:2009cv01873 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/27/2011 RECOMMENDING that Ptnr's 1 application for writ of habeas corpus be denied and this case be closed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Objections to F&R due within 21 days. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
-KJN (TEMP)(HC) Ventura v. Sisto et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTONIO VENTURA, 11 Petitioner, 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-09-1873 MCE KJN (TEMP) P D.K. SISTO, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding with a petition for a writ of habeas 17 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a 2007 denial of parole. Petitioner asserts he was 18 denied his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and his right to due process arising under 19 the California Constitution because the decision to deny him parole in 2007 is not supported by 20 sufficient evidence. 21 The United States Supreme Court recently found in Swarthout v. Cooke, No. 10- 22 333, 2011 WL 197627 (S. Ct., January 24, 2011), that prisoners being considered for parole 23 under California law have a right arising under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 24 Amendment to be heard at their parole proceedings and a right to be provided with a statement of 25 reasons for denial of parole. Id. at *2. The Court specifically rejected the notion that there can 26 be a valid claim under the Fourteenth Amendment for insufficiency of evidence presented at a 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 parole proceeding. Id. at *3. 2 Because petitioner fails to allege he was denied any of the process due under the 3 Fourteenth Amendment at his 2007 parole hearing, his claim arising under federal law must be 4 denied. 5 As for petitioner’s state law claim, relief is simply unavailable as the court cannot 6 entertain a claim brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless it concerns a violation of federal law. 7 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (Federal courts shall “entertain an application for a writ of habeas 8 corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the 9 ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 10 States.”). 11 12 For theses reasons, petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus should be denied. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 14 1. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus be denied; and 15 2. This case be closed. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 17 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 18 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 19 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 20 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files 21 objections, he shall also address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why 22 and as to which issues. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if 23 the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 24 2253(c)(3). Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after 25 service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 26 //// 2 1 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 2 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: January 27, 2011 4 5 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 vent1873.157 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.