(HC) Stephen v. Matteson, No. 2:2020cv01003 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/16/2020 RECOMMENDING 18 Motion to Amend be denied, and the proposed amended petition be dismissed. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 30 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIMMIE STEPHEN, 12 No. 2:20-cv-1003 KJM KJN P Petitioner, 13 v. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WARDEN G. MATTESON, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On December 9, 2020, the 17 18 petition filed in 2:20-cv-2315 EFB was filed in this action and construed as petitioner’s motion to 19 amend the instant petition.1 As set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the motion to 20 amend be denied. 21 I. Background 22 In Los Angeles County in 1991, petitioner was sentenced to 35 years to life with the 23 possibility of parole based on his conviction of second degree murder (15 years to life) with 24 enhancements (20 years) as an adult. (ECF No. 18 at 11.) On December 5, 2019, at an elderly 25 26 27 28 1 To the extent the proposed amended petition also challenges petitioner’s 1991 conviction or sentence in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. A714077, such challenge was adjudicated in Stephen v. Matteson, No. 2:20-cv-2315 EFB (E.D. Cal.) (See ECF Nos. 9 & 10). A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 1 1 parole hearing, petitioner was denied parole for a period of three years, by the Board of Parole 2 Hearings (“BPH”). (ECF No. 1 at 13, 14.) 3 II. Legal Standards 4 If a new petition is filed when a previous habeas petition is still pending before the district 5 court without a decision having been rendered, then the new petition should be construed as a 6 motion to amend the pending petition. Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 2008). 7 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 8 petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the 9 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. . . .” Id.; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 10 (2005). “[I]t is the duty of the court to screen out frivolous applications and eliminate the burden 11 that would be placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer,” particularly where 12 the petition does not state facts “that point to a real possibility of constitutional error.” Habeas 13 Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes (1976 Adoption) (internal quotation marks and citation 14 omitted). Accordingly, the court reviews the proposed amended petition pursuant to its authority 15 under Rule 4. 16 III. Is the 2019 Parole Challenge Cognizable? 17 In his first claim, petitioner appears to challenge the alleged failure of BPH Executive 18 Officer Shaffer to disclose favorable evidence regarding a prison disciplinary matter involving 19 Lt. H. Williams, which petitioner alleges resulted in the December 5, 2019 denial of parole. (ECF 20 No. 18 at 5.) In his second claim, petitioner appears to challenge the actions of Shaffer, as well as 21 BPH Commissioner Barton, who presided over the December 5, 2019 parole proceeding, relating 22 to prison discipline involving Williams.2 (ECF No. 18 at 5.) 23 Petitioner’s challenges to the 2019 parole denial on the grounds the BPH was biased and 24 made an unsuitability finding that was not supported by the evidence are foreclosed by the 25 Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011). In Cooke, the Court 26 explained that a federal habeas court’s inquiry into a parole denial is limited to determining 27 28 2 See Transcript of December 5, 2019 Parole Hearing, Stephen v. Matteson, 2:20-cv-2315 EFB (E.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 7). 2 1 whether the following procedural safeguards were satisfied: the prisoner “was allowed an 2 opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” 3 Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220 (citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 4 1, 16 (1979). The Court was “unequivocal in holding that if an inmate seeking parole [received 5 the safeguards under Greenholtz], that should be the beginning and the end of the inquiry into 6 whether the inmate received due process.” Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 7 2011) (quoting Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220) (internal quotations, alterations, and ellipsis omitted). 8 Here, petitioner does not allege that during the 2019 parole hearing he was in any way 9 deprived of the opportunity to speak and contest the evidence against him, or that he was not 10 notified of the reasons why parole was denied. (ECF No. 18.) Under Cooke, this court lacks the 11 authority to evaluate claims that exceed the scope of these minimal due process protections. 12 Accordingly, petitioner’s purported parole claims are not cognizable and cannot be considered on 13 federal habeas review. 14 IV. Conclusion 15 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s motion to amend the petition (ECF No. 18) be denied, and the proposed amended petition (ECF No. 18) be dismissed. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after 19 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 20 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 21 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, he shall also 22 address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issues. 23 A 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). Any 25 response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the 26 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 27 //// 28 //// 3 1 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 2 1991). 3 Dated: December 16, 2020 4 5 6 7 /step1003.mta.hc 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.