Opinion

(HC) Galaz v. Pfeiffer

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Apr 19, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.5%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DONALDO GALAZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-00468-KES-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE

13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND

14 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER,

15

(Doc. 12)

Respondent.

16

17

18 Petitioner Donaldo Galaz (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition

19 for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks review of an adverse Board of

20 Parole Hearing decision in 2021. Doc. 10.

21 On April 7, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge completed a screening of the Petitioner’s

22 initial petition. Doc. 8. The magistrate judge found the petition failed to show it was within the

23 applicable statute of limitations, failed to show exhaustion, and failed to state a cognizable habeas

24 claim. Id. The magistrate judge granted Petitioner an opportunity to file a first amended petition

25 to correct the identified deficiencies. Id. at 8.

26 On May 5, 2023, Petitioner filed a first amended petition. Doc. 10. On May 23, 2023, the

27 assigned magistrate judge completed a screening of the first amended petition and issued findings

and recommendations that it be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable habeas

1 claim. Doc. 12. The magistrate judge found that the first amended petition failed to state a

2 cognizable habeas claim, including because Petitioner’s claims asserted procedural due process

3 violations and the record showed that Petitioner was afforded the opportunity to attend his parole

4 hearing and was provided a statement of reasons for the denial of parole. Id.

5 On June 8, 2023, Petitioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc.

6 13). Petitioner acknowledges that he “was afforded an opportunity to attend his Elderly Parole

7 Suitability Hearing” but claims he was not afforded a fair opportunity to be heard pursuant to

8 Miller v. Oregon Bd. Of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 642 F.3d 711 (9th Cir. 2011). Id. at

9 3–4. Specifically, Petitioner claims “the statement of reasons why parole was denied, was

10 arbitrary and capricious and does not comport with the statutory authorities that govern the BPH.”

11 Id.

12 In the context of parole eligibility decisions, the due process right is procedural, and

13 entitles a prisoner to a fair hearing and a statement of reasons for a parole board’s decision.

14 Miller, 642 F.3d at 716; Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220-21 (2011). Here, Petitioner was

15 provided those rights. With his first amended petition, Petitioner submitted a transcript of his

16 parole hearing. The transcript confirms Petitioner attended and testified at the hearing, and that

17 the parole board set out its reasons for denying him parole. Doc. 10 at 47–129, 142–74.

18 Petitioner’s argument is essentially that the parole board improperly weighed the evidence in

19 finding him unsuitable for parole. Petitioner’s claims are the very type that the Supreme Court

20 has made clear are not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Swarthout, 562 U.S at 220-21

21 (rejecting contention that federal Due Process Clause contains guarantee of evidentiary

22 sufficiency with respect to parole determinations). Because the first amended petition establishes

23 that Petitioner received a Constitutionally sufficient hearing, Petitioner’s claim fails to establish a

24 cognizable due process violation. Therefore, summary dismissal of Petitioner’s claims

25 challenging the parole board’s decision is warranted.

26 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:

27 1. The May 23, 2023, findings and recommendations (Doc. 12) are adopted in full;

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice and without

2 leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable claim; and

3} 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

4

5

6 | TPIS SO ORDERED. _

7 Dated: _ April 18, 2024 4h :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.