-JFM (HC) Ramirez v. Martel, No. 2:2010cv03200 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 06/09/11 recommending that respondent's 03/07/11 motion to dismiss be granted; This action be dismissed; and the district court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. MOTION to DISMISS 12 referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF

-JFM (HC) Ramirez v. Martel Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICARDO GIL RAMIREZ, 11 12 13 Petitioner, No. 2:10-cv-3200 JAM JFM (HC) Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. M. MARTEL, 14 15 / 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims that his federal constitutional 18 right to due process was violated by a 2009 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings 19 to deny him a parole date. This matter is before the court on respondent’s motion to dismiss this 20 action for failure to state a cognizable federal claim. Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the 21 motion. 22 A motion for summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 23 Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 (“Habeas Rules”) is an appropriate motion in habeas 24 proceedings. O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 25 599, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1989). Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules authorizes a judge to summarily dismiss 26 a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4 also authorizes motions to dismiss 2 on procedural grounds where there exists a procedural reason for dismissing a habeas petition 3 that may obviate the need for a full answer on the merits. See White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d at 602. 4 In the instant case, petitioner challenges a 2009 decision of the California Board 5 of Parole Hearings to deny him a parole date. Petitioner claims the decision violated his right to 6 due process because it was arbitrary and unsupported by any evidence that he is currently 7 dangerous. 8 California’s parole statutes give rise to a liberty interest in parole protected by the 9 federal due process clause. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 861 (2011). In California, a 10 prisoner is entitled to release on parole unless there is “some evidence” of his or her current 11 dangerousness. In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1205-06, 1210 (2008); In re Rosenkrantz, 29 12 Cal.4th 616, 651-53 (2002). However, in Swarthout the United States Supreme Court held that 13 “[n]o opinion of [theirs] supports converting California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive 14 federal requirement.” Swarthout, 131 S. Ct. at 862. Rather, the protection afforded by the 15 federal due process clause to California parole decisions consists solely of the “minimal” 16 procedural requirements set forth in Greenholtz, specifically “an opportunity to be heard and . . . 17 a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Id. 18 Here, the record reflects that petitioner was present at the 2009 parole hearing, 19 that he participated in the hearing, and that he was provided with the reasons for the Board’s 20 decision to deny parole. According to the United States Supreme Court, the federal due process 21 clause requires no more. For that reason, petitioner’s claim that the decision was arbitrary and 22 unsupported by evidence of current dangerousness is not cognizable in this federal habeas corpus 23 proceeding. Respondent’s motion to dismiss should therefore be granted. 24 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 25 States District Courts, “[t]he district court must issue or a deny a certificate of appealability when 26 it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A certificate of 2 1 appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial 2 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court must either 3 issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must 4 state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). For the reasons 5 set forth in these findings and recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of 6 the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, no certificate of appealability should issue. 7 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. Respondent’s March 7, 2011 motion to dismiss be granted; 9 2. This action be dismissed; and 10 3. The district court decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 12 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 13 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 14 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 15 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 16 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 17 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 18 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 DATED: June 9, 2011. 20 21 22 23 24 12 rami3200.mtd 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.