(HC) Lyons v. Board of Parole Hearing, No. 2:2018cv02136 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/4/2018 ORDERING Clerk of Court to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action and RECOMMENDING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed and thi s court decline to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Lyons v. Board of Parole Hearing Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIE CARL LYONS, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:18-cv-2136 AC P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the filing fee. I. 19 The Petition Petitioner challenges the January 25, 2017 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings 20 21 (BPH) denying him parole. ECF No. 1 at 1. He asserts that his due process rights were violated 22 when the BPH denied him parole based on false or inaccurate information, failed to give proper 23 weight to the evidence before it, did not properly consider the mitigating factors he presented, and 24 his attorney failed to object to the inaccurate information or present additional evidence. Id. at 5- 25 8. 26 II. Discussion 27 Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the court to 28 summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” As set forth below, the 2 petition fails to state a cognizable claim for relief and will be dismissed. 3 The United States Supreme Court in 2011 overruled a line of Ninth Circuit precedent that 4 had supported habeas review of parole denials in California cases. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 5 216, 219 (2011). The Supreme Court held that federal habeas jurisdiction does not extend to 6 review of the evidentiary basis for state parole decisions. Id. Because habeas relief is not 7 available for errors of state law, and because the Due Process Clause does not require correct 8 application of California’s “some evidence” standard for denial of parole, federal courts may not 9 intervene in parole decisions as long as minimum procedural protections are provided. Id. at 219- 10 20. The protection afforded by the federal Due Process Clause to California parole decisions 11 consists solely of the “minimum” procedural requirements set forth in Greenholtz v. Inmates of 12 Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979). Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220. Specifically, an 13 inmate must be provided with “an opportunity to be heard and . . . a statement of the reasons why 14 parole was denied.” Id. (citing Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16). 15 The transcript attached to the petition make clear that petitioner was present at the hearing, 16 represented by counsel, and provided a statement of the reasons parole was denied. ECF No. 1-2 17 at 3-142. “[T]he beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’ inquiry” is whether 18 petitioner received “the minimum procedures adequate for due-process protection.” Cooke, 562 19 U.S. at 220. The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that after Cooke, substantive challenges to 20 parole decisions are not cognizable in habeas. Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 21 2011). Petitioner received all the process he was due and his challenge to the denial of parole is 22 therefore not cognizable. 23 24 III. Certificate of Appealability Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court must 25 issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A 26 certificate of appealability may issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 27 denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in these 28 findings and recommendations, a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has 2 1 not been made in this case. Therefore, no certificate of appealability should issue. 2 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 4 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 5 1. The petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. 6 2. This court decline to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 7 8 9 § 2253. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 10 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 11 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 12 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 13 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 14 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: September 4, 2018 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
