The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No. CV 19-9871-PA (KK)
11 Petitioner,
12 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
13 J. GASTELO, Warden, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
14 Respondent.
15
16
17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for a Writ of
18 Habeas Corpus, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the
19 United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those
20 portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected.
21 In his Objections, Petitioner argues the Report and Recommendation fails to
22 address his argument that the Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) “is not following the
23 law and their making arbitrary, capricious, illegal decisions” denying him parole in
24 2017 and 2019. Dkt. 14 at 1-2. The United States Supreme Court in Swarthout v.
25 Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 131 S. Ct. 859, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (2011), however, “was
26 unequivocal in holding that if an inmate seeking parole receives an opportunity to be
27 heard, a notification of the reasons as to denial of parole, and access to their records
1 | whether [the inmate] received due process.”’ Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191
2 | Oth Cir. 2011) (quoting Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220) (alterations in original)); see also
3 | Cooke, 562 US. at 221 (“[f]t is no federal concern... whether California’s ‘some
4 | evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands)
5 | was correctly applied.”’); Rodriguez v. Gonzales, No. EDCV 13-1389-DOC DTB,
6 | 2014 WL 2557697, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014), report and recommendation
7 | adopted sub nom. Rodriguez v. A.M. Gonzales, Warden, 2014 WL 2567843 (C.D.
8 | Cal. June 5, 2014) (holding federal habeas relief was not available on petitioner’s claim
9 | that the BPH’s “parole consideration hearing and denial of parole was arbitrary and
10 | capricious and violated his due process rights’’). The Court, therefore, accepts the
11 | findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered (1) dismissing
13 | Claims One and Three of the Petition challenging Petitioner’s ineligibility for early
14 | parole review without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to
15 | 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) denying and dismissing Claim Two of the Petition
16 | challenging the November 6, 2018 disciplinary hearing with prejudice.
17 | Cte _
18 | Dated: March 25, 2020
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28