The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11 SAUL MIRANDA RAMIREZ, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-00163-SKO (HC)
)
12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
) ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
13 )
v.
14 ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
) SUMMARILY DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT
15 CDCR SECRETARY, ) OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF
) JURISDICTION
16 Respondent. )
) [21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]
17 )
18
19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of
20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
21 On February 5, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition. He challenges a parole
22 suitability determination by the California Board of Parole Hearings. Because the Court is without
23 jurisdiction to review the substantive due process of a parole suitability determination, the Court will
24 recommend the petition be DISMISSED.
25 I. Preliminary Screening of the Petition
26 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition
27 if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
28 relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Advisory
1 Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
2 either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an
3 answer to the petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001). A petition for
4 habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim
5 for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
6 The Court will review the instant petition pursuant to its authority under Rule 4.
7 II. Failure to State a Claim Cognizable Under Federal Habeas Corpus
8 On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
9 1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA imposes various requirements on all petitions for writ of habeas corpus
10 filed after the date of its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114
11 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). The instant petition was filed on February 5, 2024, and
12 thus, it is subject to the provisions of the AEDPA.
13 Petitioner states that he is an inmate of the California Department of Corrections and
14 Rehabilitation serving a sentence of 7 years to life plus 4 years imposed by the Monterey County
15 Superior Court following his 1993 conviction for attempted first degree murder with use of a firearm.
16 (Doc. 1 at 1.) Petitioner does not challenge either his conviction or sentence; rather, he challenges a
17 March 7, 2023, decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) finding him unsuitable
18 for parole. He claims the Board’s decision is factually unsupported and failed to give consideration to
19 certain factors. He also claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
20 Petitioner’s claims concern the decision of the Board which are foreclosed by the Supreme
21 Court’s decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011). In Swarthout, the Supreme Court held
22 that the federal habeas court’s inquiry into whether a prisoner who has been denied parole received
23 due process is limited to determining whether the prisoner “was allowed an opportunity to be heard
24 and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Id., (citing Greenholtz v.
25 Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979)). Petitioner does not contend
26 he was denied these procedural due process guarantees, and a review of the record shows that he was
27 not. (Doc. 1 at 37-100; 1-1 at 1-12.) According to the Supreme Court, this is “the beginning and the
28 end of the federal habeas courts’ inquiry into whether [the prisoner] received due process.”
1 Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220. “‘The Constitution,’ [the Supreme Court] held, ‘does not require more.’”
2 Id., (quoting Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16). Therefore, Petitioner’s challenges to the Board’s denial of
3 parole fail to present cognizable federal claims for relief, and the petition should be dismissed.
4 ORDER
5 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign a United States District
6 Judge to this case.
7 RECOMMENDATION
8 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for
9 writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be SUMMARILY DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which
10 federal habeas relief can be granted.
11 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge
12 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the
13 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
14 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections
15 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
16 Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
17 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive
18 the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
19
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 Dated: February 8, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28