-KJN (TEMP)(HC) Cardenas v. Board of Parole Hearings, et al, No. 2:2010cv03463 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/25/2011 ORDERING that ptnr's 6 request to proceed IFP is GRANTED; and RECOMMENDING that ptnr's application for writ of habeas corpus be denied; and this case be closed. Referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
-KJN (TEMP)(HC) Cardenas v. Board of Parole Hearings, et al Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HECTOR CARDENAS, Petitioner, 11 12 No. CIV-S-10-3463 LKK KJN (TEMP) P vs. 13 BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, et al., ORDER AND 14 Respondents. / 15 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a petition for writ 17 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma 18 pauperis. 19 Examination of the request to proceed in forma pauperis reveals petitioner is 20 unable to afford the costs of this action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is 21 granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must conduct a 23 preliminary review of § 2254 habeas petitions and dismiss any petition where it plainly appears 24 that petitioner is not entitled to relief in this court. 25 Petitioner challenges the fact the he was denied parole in 2009. He asserts the 26 evidence presented at his parole hearing is not sufficient under the Due Process Clause of the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Fourteenth Amendment to sustain his being denied parole. 2 The United States Supreme Court recently found in Swarthout v. Cooke, No. 10- 3 333, 2011 WL 197627 (S. Ct., January 24, 2011), that prisoners being considered for parole under 4 California law have a right arising under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to 5 be heard at their parole proceedings and a to be provided with a statement of reasons for denial of 6 parole. Id. at *2. The Court specifically rejected the notion that there can be a valid claim under 7 the Fourteenth Amendment for insufficiency of evidence presented at a parole proceeding. Id. at 8 *3. 9 Because petitioner fails to allege that he was denied any of the process due under 10 the Fourteenth Amendment at his 2009 parole hearing, his petition for writ of habeas corpus must 11 be denied. 12 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request 13 to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; and 14 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 15 1. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus be denied; and 16 2. This case be closed. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 18 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty19 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 20 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 21 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, he shall also address 22 whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issues. A 23 certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a 24 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Petitioner is 25 //// 26 //// 2 1 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 2 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: January 25, 2011 4 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 card3463.114 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.