Woodham v. Hedgepeth et al, No. 4:2009cv02795 - Document 19 (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[
Woodham v. Hedgepeth et al Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 10 11 12 13 GENE PAUL WOODHAM, ) No. C 09-2795 CW (PR) ) Petitioner, ) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A ) WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. ) ) ) A. HEDGPETH, Warden, ) Respondent. ) ___________________________ ) 14 INTRODUCTION 15 16 17 18 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. 19 BACKGROUND 20 21 Petitioner is serving a sentence of sixteen years to life in 22 state prison after having been convicted of second degree murder 23 in 1983. 24 his conviction or a parole denial. 25 his continued incarceration past his "maximum eligible parole 26 In the instant petition, Petitioner is not challenging Rather, his sole claim is that release date" of June 16, 1999 is a violation of his right to due 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 process. 2 "maximum eligible parole release date" appears on documents from 3 (Pet. at 6.)1 The sole basis for his claim is that California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) 4 that are in his file. (Pet., Ex. A.) Petitioner sought, but was 5 6 7 denied, relief on state collateral review on this claim. federal habeas petition followed. Respondent asserts that the "maximum eligible parole date" -- 8 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 10 11 This which here is sixteen years after Petitioner was first incarcerated, that is, his minimum sentence -- is used by the CDCR to calculate an inmate's minimum eligible parole release date, and 12 does not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest. 13 14 (Ans. at 6.) STANDARD OF REVIEW 15 A federal writ of habeas corpus may not be granted with 16 17 respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state 18 court unless the state court's adjudication of the claims: 19 "(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 20 unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as 21 22 determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 23 (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 24 determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in 25 the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 26 1 Petitioner also claims, without elaboration, that his continued incarceration violates his right to equal protection. (Pet. at 6.) 28 Because Petitioner's contentions are directed solely to due process, the Court does not address herein Petitioner's unsupported equal protection claim. 27 2 1 2 3 "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 4 law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the 5 6 Supreme] Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts." 8 the 'unreasonable application' clause, a federal habeas court may 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 7 grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct 10 11 Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). "Under governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the 12 prisoner's case." Id. at 413. The only definitive source of 13 14 clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is in 15 the holdings of the Supreme Court as of the time of the relevant 16 state court decision. 17 18 19 Id. at 412. DISCUSSION Petitioner's claim fails because he has no liberty interest in his "maximum eligible parole release date." “There is no 20 constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be 21 22 conditionally released before the expiration of a valid 23 sentence.” 24 Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). 25 acquire a liberty interest in parole if a state, through the use 26 of mandatory language, creates a presumption that parole will be 27 Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & A prisoner may granted when certain designated conditions are satisfied. See 28 Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 377-78 (1987). 3 The 1 "maximum eligibility parole date" does not create a recognized 2 liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. 3 See Fryburger v. Curry, 348 Fed. Appx. 273 (9th. Cir. 2009). 4 In the instant matter, no parole date has been set, nor was 5 6 Petitioner promised at any time that he would be paroled on a particular date. 8 become eligible for parole consideration. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 7 indeterminate sentence for second degree murder, such as in the 10 instant matter, "may serve up to life in prison but may become 11 Petitioner has been promised only that he may Prisoners serving an eligible for parole consideration after serving minimum terms of 12 confinement." Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 13 14 2007)(internal quotation marks omitted) (overruled on other 15 grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010)(en 16 banc)). 17 CDCR documents in Petitioner's file does not change this state of 18 affairs. 19 The appearance of a "maximum eligible parole date" in That is, "maximum eligible parole date" does not set a parole date, but rather is a point of reference used by the CDCR 20 to calculate parole eligibility dates, and, its appearance in 21 22 documentation in Petitioner's file does not, under Ninth Circuit 23 case law, create a liberty interest. 24 Accordingly, Petitioner's claim is DENIED. 25 CONCLUSION 26 The state court's denial of Petitioner's claims did not 27 result in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 28 unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor 4 1 did it result in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 2 determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in 3 the state court proceeding. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. 4 A certificate of appealability will not issue. Reasonable 5 6 jurists would not "find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." 8 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 7 appealability from the Court of Appeals. 10 11 Slack v. McDaniel, Petitioner may seek a certificate of The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 DATED: 2/14/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 4 5 GENE PAUL WOODHAM, Case Number: CV09-02795 CW 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. A HEDGEPETH 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 17 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. 18 19 20 21 Gene P. Woodham C-67944 Salinas Valley State Prison P.O. Box 1050 Soledad, CA 93960-1050 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.
