The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
Case No. CV 21-3912 CAS (MRW)
13 ANSELMO E. PEREZ,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
14 Petitioner,
15 v.
16 CRAIG KOENIG, Warden,
17 Respondent.
18
19
The Court grants the Attorney General’s unopposed motion to
20
dismiss this habeas corpus action for (a) lack of jurisdiction and (b) failure
21
to state a cognizable claim.
22
* * *
23
1. Petitioner is a state prisoner. In 1991, he was convicted of
24
murder and sentenced to 19 years to life in prison. (Docket # 1 at 2.)
25
According to the California Attorney General, the state parole board denied
26
parole to Petitioner on several occasions. The most recent denial was in
27
28
1 August 2019. His next parole hearing is scheduled for August 2022.
2 (Docket # 10 at 3-4.)
3 2. Petitioner’s federal habeas petition broadly challenges aspects
4 of the state’s parole system and the most recent denial of his request for
5 parole. (Docket # 1 at 5-6.) The Attorney General moved to dismiss the
6 petition. The Attorney General argued that the claims in the petition do
7 not present a federal constitutional claim upon which relief may be
8 granted. (Docket # 10.)
9 3. Magistrate Judge Wilner issued two orders informing
10 Petitioner of his obligation to respond to the Attorney General’s dismissal
11 motion. (Docket # 12, 13.) Both orders informed Petitioner that, under the
12 Local Rules of Court, an unopposed motion is deemed consent to the relief
13 requested in the motion. However, Petitioner failed to respond to either
14 order or to substantively oppose the motion.
15 * * *
16 4. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person
17 detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may dismiss a habeas
18 action. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254
19 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be summarily
20 dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief); Local Civil Rule 72-3.2
21 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary dismissal to
22 district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition [ ] that the
23 petitioner is not entitled to relief”).
24 5. Local Rule of Court 7-9 requires a party to file a memorandum
25 stating the basis for that party’s opposition to a motion. Local Rule 7-12
26 states that the “failure to file any required document [ ] may be deemed
27 consent to the granting or denial of the motion.”
28
1 * * *
2 6. The scope of federal review of adverse parole determinations is
3 quite narrow. The sole federal constitutional issue that a court may
4 consider is whether a prisoner received “minimal” due process protections:
5 “an opportunity to be heard” and “a statement of reasons” for the denial of
6 parole. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). A federal court does
7 not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the merits of the parole
8 hearing, reweigh the evidence presented to the board, or evaluate a
9 prisoner’s claim for parole under state guidelines. If the state provided
10 “fair procedures” in the parole process, “that is the end of the matter” on
11 federal review. Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2011);
12 Harrison v. Shaffer, 835 F. App’x 278, 279 (9th Cir. 2021) (affirming
13 dismissal of § 1983 action challenging denial of parole; prisoner “failed to
14 allege facts sufficient to state a plausible due process claim”).
15 7. Petitioner failed to plead a plausible or recognizable
16 constitutional claim for habeas relief. The petition does not allege that the
17 state parole board violated the minimal due process rights (opportunity to
18 address the parole board or receipt of an explanation of the denial of
19 parole) identified in Cooke. To the contrary, the petition challenges the
20 substance of the board’s basis for denying him parole: Petitioner’s “lack of
21 insight” regarding his criminal conduct. (Docket # 1 at 6.) That is
22 insufficient to state a habeas claim under the federal constitution or for
23 this Court to exercise jurisdiction. Roberts, 640 F.3d at 1045-46.
24 8. The remainder of the petition consists of broad challenges to
25 the substance of the state’s statutory scheme for evaluating parole
26 requests. Those state law considerations are not cognizable on federal
27
28
1 | habeas review.! 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Cooke, 562 U.S. at 219, 222 (citing
2 | Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991)).
3 9. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 warrants dismissal of the case.
4 | The Court informed Petitioner of this requirement in two previous orders.
5 | Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir.
6 | 2019). Petitioner did not respond to the Attorney General’s dismissal
7 | motion. Petitioner’s failure to oppose the motion signifies his consent to
8 | the dismissal of the action.
9 Therefore, the present action is DISMISSED.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 ad
12 | Dated: November 2, 2021 do
13 HON. CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15 Presented by:
16
17
18 | HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22,
23
24
25
1 The petition does not present any cognizable claim regarding
26 | Petitioner’s future parole consideration. As a result, the Court exercises its
discretion to conclude that the habeas petition is not amenable to conversion into
27 | a civil rights complaint. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 936 (9th Cir. 2016);
Richardson v. Board of Prison Hearings, 785 F. App’x 433, 435 (9th Cir. 2021)
28 (same).