“the responsibility for assuring that the 14 constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s parole system are properly 15 applied rests with California courts,” and not a matter for federal habeas courts
How later courts described this case
- “the responsibility for assuring that the 14 constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s parole system are properly 15 applied rests with California courts,” and not a matter for federal habeas courts
- noting that one of the inmates in Cooke had been found 26 unsuitable for parole by the Governor rather than the Board
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
CROSSAN D. HOOVER,
11 Case No. 19-cv-08352-RS (PR)
Petitioner,
12
v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL
13
C. KOENIG,
14
Respondent.
15
16
17 INTRODUCTION
18 Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from the
19 Governor’s decision to deny parole after the Board of Parole Hearings had found him
20 suitable for release. Because petitioner’s habeas claims are foreclosed by Supreme Court
21 precedent, the petition is DISMISSED.
22 BACKGROUND
23 Petitioner was convicted in 1984 in a California state court of murder and sentenced
24 to 26 years to life. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) In 2018 the California Board of Parole Hearings
25 found him suitable for parole, but in 2019 the Governor reversed the decision. (Id. at 12,
26 23, 131, and 177.) It appears petitioner exhausted his state court remedies before filing the
27 instant federal petition.
1 STANDARD OF REVIEW
2 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person
3 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only claiming he is in custody in
4 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
5 A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ
6 or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be
7 granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not
8 entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the
9 allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently
10 frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).
11 DISCUSSION
12 Petitioner’s habeas claims are foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in
13 Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011) (“the responsibility for assuring that the
14 constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s parole system are properly
15 applied rests with California courts,” and not a matter for federal habeas courts). In light
16 of Cooke, the Ninth Circuit has held that “there is no substantive due process right created
17 by California’s parole scheme.” Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011).
18 In the parole context, a prisoner receives constitutionally adequate process when
19 “he was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons”
20 why parole was denied. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. at 862. “The Constitution does not require
21 more.” Id. (quoting Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex,
22 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979)). The Constitution does not even require an inquiry into whether
23 California’s procedures produced the result the evidence required. Id. The Cooke rule is
24 the same whether the Board or the Governor denied parole. Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d
25 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that one of the inmates in Cooke had been found
26 unsuitable for parole by the Governor rather than the Board).
27
1 In the instant matter, the record shows that petitioner received the required amount
2 || of process. He had a hearing; was afforded an opportunity to be heard; and was provided a
3 || statement of reasons parole was denied. Because petitioner received constitutionally
4 adequate process, no federal habeas claim lies, and the petition is DISMISSED.
5 CONCLUSION
6 The petition is DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner
7 || has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
8 || valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
9 || debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.
10 || McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability
11 || from the Court of Appeals. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, and
2 close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S 14 || Dated: January 24 , 2020 Schon
"RICHARD SEEBORG _
16 United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
. CasE No. 19-cv-08352-RS