-CMK (HC) Castelan v. Board of Parole Hearings et al, No. 2:2010cv03110 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/12/11 RECOMMENDING that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be summarily dismissed. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-CMK (HC) Castelan v. Board of Parole Hearings et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICTOR SOLORIO CASTELAN, 12 13 No. CIV S-10-3110-KJM-CMK-P Petitioner, vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a denial of parole. Pending before the 19 court is petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Docs. 1). 20 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary 21 dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any 22 exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the 23 instant case, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. 24 The United States Supreme Court has recently addressed the issues petitioner 25 raises in his petition. Reversing the holding of the Ninth Circuit in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 26 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), the Court observed: 1 Dockets.Justia.com whatever liberty interest exists [in parole] is, of course, a state interest. There is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally released [on parole] before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners. Id. at 7. 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. . . . 1 2 3 4 5 Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. ___, 2011 WL 197627, at *2 (Jan. 24, 2011) (per curiam) (citing 6 Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979)) (emphasis 7 in original). 8 The Court held: 9 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. 442 U.S. at 16. “The Constitution,” we held, “does not require more.” Ibid. Cooke and Clay received at least this amount of process: 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. (citations omitted). That should have been the beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’ inquiry into whether Cook and Clay received due process. . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Id. at *2-3. 17 The Court added that “[n]o opinion of ours supports converting California’s 18 ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement” and “it is no federal concern . . . 19 whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the 20 Constitution demands) was correctly applied” because “a ‘mere error of state law’ is not a denial 21 of due process.” Id. at *3 (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 121, n.21 (1982)). Thus, in cases 22 challenging the denial of parole, the only issue subject to federal habeas review is whether the 23 inmate received the procedural due process protections of notice and an opportunity to be heard. 24 There is no other clearly established federal constitutional right in the context of parole. 25 /// 26 /// 2 1 Here, petitioner claims that the decision to deny him parole was not based on 2 “some evidence” and otherwise failed to satisfy substantive due process. Such a claim is 3 foreclosed as a matter of law because there is no clearly established federal constitutional 4 substantive due process right in parole. Petitioner does not raise any procedural due process 5 claims, such as the failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard. Thus, it plainly 6 appears that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. 7 8 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be summarily dismissed. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 13 objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. 14 See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 17 18 DATED: September 12, 2011 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
