The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JERRALD D. GAZAWAY, No. 2:23-CV-0699-WBS-DMC-P
12 Petitioner,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
15 Respondent.
16
17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of
18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Respondent’s motion to
19 dismiss. See ECF No. 12. Petitioner has filed an opposition. See ECF No. 14. Respondent has
20 filed a reply. See ECF No. 16. Petitioner has also filed two sur-reply briefs without leave of
21 Court. See ECF No. 17 and 20.
22 Petitioner filed this action on April 14, 2023, challenging a decision by the
23 California Board of Parole Hearings, rendered following the Governor’s request for review, to
24 rescind a previous recommendation that Petitioner be granted parole. See ECF No. 1. Petitioner
25 claims that the decision violated his federal due process rights because it is not based on
26 sufficient evidence of Petitioner’s current dangerousness, as required under California law. See
27 id. Respondent argues that Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal claim. See ECF No. 12.
28 For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees.
1 Reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th
2 Cir. 2010) (en banc), the United States Supreme Court observed:
3 Whatever liberty interest exists [in parole] is, of course, a state interest.
There is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally
4 released [on parole] before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States
are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners. Id. at 7. When,
5 however, a State creates a liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires
fair procedures for its vindication – and federal courts will review the
6 application of those constitutionally required procedures. . . .
7 Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011) (per curiam) (citing
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7
8 (1979)) (emphasis in original).
9 The Court held:
10 . . . In the context of parole, we have held that the procedures required are
minimal. In Greenholtz, we found that a prisoner subject to a parole
11 statute similar to California’s received adequate process when he was
allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the
12 reasons why parole was denied. 442 U.S. at 16. “The Constitution,” we
held, “does not require more.” Ibid. Cooke and Clay received at least this
13 amount of process: They were allowed to speak at their parole hearings
and to contest the evidence against them, were afforded access to their
14 records in advance, and were notified as to the reasons why parole was
denied. (citations omitted). That should have been the beginning and the
15 end of the federal habeas courts’ inquiry into whether Cook and Clay
received due process. . . .
16
Id.
17
18 The Court added that “[n]o opinion of ours supports converting California’s ‘some
19 evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement” and “. . . it is no federal concern . . .
20 whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the
21 Constitution demands) was correctly applied” because “a ‘mere error of state law’ is not a denial
22 of due process.” Id. at 862-63 (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 121, n.21 (1982)). Thus, in
23 cases challenging the denial of parole, the only issue subject to federal habeas review is whether
24 the inmate received the procedural due process protections of notice and an opportunity to be
25 heard. There is no other clearly established federal constitutional right in the context of parole.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
] In this case, Petitioner claims that his federal due process rights were violated
2 || because the denial of parole was not based on “some evidence,” specifically evidence of current
3 || dangerousness. As discussed above, it is not the place of the federal court to rule on how
4 || California’s “some evidence” parole standard has been applied except to inquire as to the basic
5 || procedural guarantees. Here, Petitioner has not claimed any denial of notice or a right to be
6 || heard. Because the federal constitution requires nothing more in the parole context, the petition
7 || must be denied.
8 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as follows:
9 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 12, be GRANTED.
10 2. All other pending motions, ECF Nos. 3, 21, 25, and 27, be DENIED as
11 | moot.
12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
13 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
14 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections
15 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections.
16 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v.
17 Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
18
19 | Dated: May 14, 2024 Co
20 DENNIS M. COTA
7] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28