federal habeas review limited to determining whether there has been a violation of the Constitution, or the law and treaties of the United States
How later courts described this case
- federal habeas review limited to determining whether there has been a violation of the Constitution, or the law and treaties of the United States
- federal habeas review not available for alleged state law violations
- Cooke held, in the context of parole eligibility decisions, the federal due process right is procedural, and entitles a prisoner to nothing more than a fair hearing and a statement of reasons for a parole board's decision
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JASON GERAY, Case No. 20-cv-05383-VC (PR)
Petitioner,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS; DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY
JENNIFER SHAFFER,
Re: Dkt. No. 9
Respondent.
Jason Geray, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the denial of parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings
(“Board”). The respondent moves to dismiss the petition. For the following reasons, the motion
is granted.
In his petition, Geray asserts, “the California Board of Parole violated due process by
denying me for the same reason two years in a row,” and “the Parole Board also noted I need
more rehabilitation efforts, [but] due to the Covid-19 there is zero rehabilitation being offered.”
Although Geray does not attach the transcript of the Board’s reasons for its denial of his parole,
he attaches the Superior Court’s denial of his petition, which said that the Board denied him
parole because: “[his] crime did involve a great deal of violence, he had a previous record of
serious criminality, and . . . both his record of prison disciplinaries and his minimal programming
shows he has not made strong efforts to reform.” ECF No. 1 at 14.
In Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011), the Supreme Court explained that, in
the context of parole, as long as the petitioner was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was
provided with a statement of the reasons why parole was denied, he received adequate due
process. And, as long as the petitioner received at least that much process, the federal court’s
habeas review was at an end. Id.; see also Miller v. Or. Bd. of Parole and Post-Prison
Supervision, 642 F.3d 711, 716 (9th Cir. 2011) (Cooke held, in the context of parole eligibility
decisions, the federal due process right is procedural, and entitles a prisoner to nothing more
than a fair hearing and a statement of reasons for a parole board's decision).
It is apparent from the Superior Court’s order that the Board provided a statement to
Geray of the reasons it denied him parole. He does not allege that the Board failed to provide
him with an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, under Cooke, Geray received all the process he
was due, and this court cannot address whether substantively the Board decided the case
correctly. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed because it only alleges the violation of state
law, not a violation of the federal constitution or statutes. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (federal habeas review limited to determining whether there
has been a violation of the Constitution, or the law and treaties of the United States); Engle v.
Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982) (federal habeas review not available for alleged state law
violations).
In his opposition, Geray cites In re Ryner, 196 Cal. App. 4th 533, to show that the
Board’s finding was “speculative, arbitrary and capricious, at best.” In Ryner, the California
Court of Appeal vacated the Governor’s decision reversing the Board’s decision to grant parole
to Ryner because the Governor’s decision was not supported by some evidence. Id. at 553.
However, Ryner is a California case and California law allows the state courts to examine the
record to determine if some evidence supports the decision of the Board or the Governor. This is
a federal court which must follow federal law. And, under Cooke, this court may only address
whether the Board provided procedural due process to Geray.
CONCLUSION
The respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted. Dismissal is with prejudice because
amendment of the petition would be futile. A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in which “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.
McDaniel 529 U.S. 472, 484 (2000). The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter a
separate judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2021 ZS
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge