The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 WONDIYRAD KABEDE, No. 2:22-cv-0637-EFB P
12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER
14 CA GOVERNOR’S PAROLE BOARD
HEARING DEP’T, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
18
28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Petitioner claims that on January 9, 2020, the Board of Parole Hearings
19
unlawfully denied him parole as an elderly inmate. See ECF No. 15 at 4, 25.
20
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court is required to conduct
21
a preliminary review of all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. The court
22
must summarily dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to
23
relief . . . .” The court has conducted the review required under Rule 4 and concludes that
24
summary dismissal of the petition is required.
25
/////
26
27 1 On July 14, 2021, petitioner commenced this action in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. ECF No. 1. On April 7, 2022, that court transferred the
28 case to this district. ECF No. 16. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.
1 A prisoner’s claim which, if successful, would not necessarily lead to immediate or
2 speedier release falls outside the “core of habeas corpus” and must be pursued in an action
3 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016). Here,
4 success on petitioner’s challenge to the denial of parole would not necessarily lead to his
5 immediate or speedier release. At best, it could result in the advancement of petitioner’s next
6 parole suitably hearing. For this reason alone, petitioner is not entitled to relief.
7 Moreover, any due process claim arising from the January 9, 2020 denial of parole fails on
8 its merits. California’s parole statutes give rise to a liberty interest protected by the federal Due
9 Process Clause. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011). In California, a prisoner is
10 entitled to release on parole unless there is “some evidence” of his current dangerousness. In re
11 Lawrence, 44 Cal. 4th 1181, 1205-06, 1210 (2008); In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal. 4th 616, 651-53
12 (2009). However, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that “[n]o opinion of [theirs] supports
13 converting California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement.” Swarthout,
14 131 S. Ct. at 220-21. The Court specifically rejected the notion that there can be a valid claim
15 under the Fourteenth Amendment for insufficiency of evidence presented, or relied upon, at a
16 parole proceeding. Id. at 220-22. Rather, the protection afforded by the federal Due Process
17 Clause to California parole decisions consists solely of the “minimum” procedural requirements,
18 specifically, “an opportunity to be heard and . . . a statement of the reasons why parole was
19 denied.” Id. at 220. Here, petitioner does not allege he was denied an opportunity to be heard or
20 that he was denied a statement of reasons for the denial of parole. Even if he had, the case file
21 demonstrates that at a subsequent parole hearing on July 21, 2021, petitioner was given a
22 statement of reasons as to why parole was denied and an opportunity to be heard with respect to
23 that decision. ECF No. 11 at 1, 102-117. Thus, petitioner was afforded all the process he was
24 due relative to his parole hearing.
25 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United
26 States District Judge to this action.
27 /////
28 /////
] Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus be
2 || summarily dismissed.
3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days
5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
6 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
7 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
8 | shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file
9 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
10 || Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.
11 | 1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue
12 || in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing
13 || Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (the district court must issue or deny a
14 | certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant).
15 || Dated: April 29, 2022.
16 Doolin SZ, LL A
17 EDMUND F. BRENNAN
ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28