Augustine v. Ayers, No. 4:2008cv05676 - Document 12 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/14/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Augustine v. Ayers Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 KEITH AUGUSTINE, ) No. C 08-5676 CW (PR) ) Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A ) WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. ) ) ) ROBERT L. AYERS, Warden, ) Respondent. ) ___________________________ ) 15 INTRODUCTION 16 17 18 19 This is a federal habeas corpus action filed by a pro se state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is DENIED. 20 BACKGROUND 21 22 In 1992, a Riverside County Superior Court jury convicted 23 Petitioner of second degree murder, and Petitioner was sentenced 24 to fifteen years to life in state prison. 25 Parole Hearings (Board) found Petitioner unsuitable for parole on 26 grounds that he "would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to 27 In 2007, the Board of society and or a threat to public safety if released from prison." 28 (Ans., Ex. 2 at 122.) In response to the Board's decision, Dockets.Justia.com 1 Petitioner sought, but was denied, relief on state collateral 2 review. 3 federal habeas relief, Petitioner alleges that the Board's 4 This federal habeas petition followed. As grounds for decision denying parole violated his right to due process because 5 the decision was not supported by some evidence. 6 STANDARD OF REVIEW 7 8 9 A federal writ of habeas corpus may not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 court unless the state court's adjudication of the claims: 11 "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 12 unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as 13 determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 14 15 (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 16 determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in 17 the State court proceeding." 18 19 20 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). "Under the 'contrary to' clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of 21 22 23 law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). "Under 24 facts." 25 the 'unreasonable application' clause, a federal habeas court may 26 grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct 27 governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court's decisions 28 but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the 2 Id. at 413. The only definitive source of 1 prisoner's case." 2 clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is in 3 the holdings of the Supreme Court as of the time of the relevant 4 state court decision. Id. at 412. 5 DISCUSSION 6 7 Petitioner claims that the Board's decision denying parole 8 violated his right to due process because the decision was not 9 supported by some evidence, a requirement under California law. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 "There is no right under the Federal Constitution to be 11 conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, 12 and the States are under no duty to offer parole to their 13 prisoners." Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional 14 15 Complex, 442 U. S. 1, 7 (1979). "When, however, a State creates 16 a liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires fair 17 procedures for its vindication -- and federal courts will review 18 the application of those constitutionally required procedures." 19 Swarthout v. Cooke, No. 10-333, slip op. 1 at 4 (U.S. January 24, 20 2011). The procedures required are "minimal." Id. A prisoner 21 22 23 receives adequate process when "he was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why." 24 at 4-5. 25 442 U.S. at 16. 26 27 28 "The Constitution does not require more." Id. Greenholtz, In the instant matter, Petitioner received at least the required amount of process. The record shows that he was allowed to speak at his parole hearing and to contest the evidence 3 1 against him, that he had received his records in advance, and 2 that he was notified of the reasons parole was denied. 3 found that Petitioner received these procedural requirements, 4 this federal habeas court's inquiry is at an end. Having Cooke, No. 5 10-333, slip op. at 5. Petitioner's claim that the Board's 6 7 8 9 decision was not supported by California's "some evidence" rule of judicial review is of "no federal concern." Id. at 6. Based on the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 CONCLUSION 11 The state court's denial of Petitioner's claims did not 12 result in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 13 unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor 14 15 did it result in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 16 determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in 17 the state court proceeding. 18 19 20 Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Reasonable jurists would not "find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Court of Appeals. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent, and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 2/14/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN 4 1 United States District Judge 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 4 5 KEITH AUGUSTINE, Case Number: CV08-05676 CW 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. ROBERT L. AYERS et al, Defendant. / 11 12 13 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 14 15 16 That on February 14, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 17 18 19 20 21 Keith Augustine H-52270 4N65 u San Quentin State Prison San Quentin, CA 94974 22 23 24 Dated: February 14, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
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.
