(HC) Hall v. Swarthout, No. 2:2009cv03216 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER VACATING 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 1/27/11. (Manzer, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Hall v. Swarthout Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANDRE HALL, Petitioner, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. CIV S-09-3216 JAM CHS P vs. GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden, Respondent. ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / Petitioner Hall is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a November 20, 2008 19 decision of the state parole authority that he was not suitable for parole. On October 4, 2010, 20 findings and recommendations issued herein, recommending that the petition be denied because 21 the parole authority’s decision was supported by some evidence in the record. 22 Previously, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had directed 23 “courts in this circuit [to] decide whether the California judicial decision approving the 24 governor’s decision rejecting parole was an ‘unreasonable application’ of the California ‘some 25 evidence’ requirement, or was ‘based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of 26 the evidence.’” Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 562-63 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Subsequent to the filing of the pending findings and recommendations, however, the United 2 States Supreme Court held in Swarthout v. Cooke, No. 10-333, slip op. at 4-5 (U.S. January 24, 3 2011), that a federal court’s inquiry into whether an inmate in California received due process in 4 the parole suitability hearing context does not include review of California’s “some evidence” 5 requirement. Rather, in the parole suitability context, “the only federal right at issue is 6 procedural.” Id. at 6. Thus, this court may only review a parole board’s procedures to see that an 7 inmate received an opportunity to be heard and a decision informing him of the reasons he did 8 not qualify for parole. See Swarthout, slip op. at 4-5 (citing Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16). 9 In light of this new controlling Supreme Court authority, IT IS HEREBY 10 ORDERED THAT the findings and recommendations signed on October 1, 2010 and filed on 11 October 4, 2010, are VACATED. New findings and recommendations will issue. 12 DATED: January 27, 2011 13 14 CHARLENE H. SORRENTINO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
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.
