The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 KEITH ROBERT LUGO, Case No. 1:25-cv-00917-EPG-HC
10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF
11 v. HABEAS CORPUS
12 R FISHER, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
13 Respondent.
14
15 Petitioner Keith Robert Lugo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ
16 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given that the petition fails to state a cognizable
17 federal habeas claim, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed.
18 I.
19 BACKGROUND
20 In 1990, Petitioner was convicted in the San Diego County Superior Court of two counts
21 of first-degree murder with use of a firearm. Petitioner was sentenced to an imprisonment term of
22 fifty-one years to life. (ECF No. 1 at 1–2.1) In the petition, Petitioner challenges the Board of
23 Parole Hearings’ denial of parole. (ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 1-2.)
24 II.
25 DISCUSSION
26 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a
27 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered
1 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
2 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254
3 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
4 In the petition, Petitioner challenges denial of parole, arguing that the Board denied
5 Petitioner due process and equal protection. (ECF No. 1-2.) “There is no constitutional or
6 inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid
7 sentence.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. U.S. 1, 7 (1979).
8 “[O]nly state law can give rise to a liberty interest in parole that is entitled to the protections of
9 the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.” Miller v. Oregon Bd. of Parole & Post Prison
10 Supervision, 642 F.3d 711, 712 (9th Cir. 2011). “[T]he Ninth Circuit [has] held that California
11 law creates a liberty interest in parole,” and the Supreme Court noted such a holding “is a
12 reasonable application of our cases.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219–20 (2011) (per
13 curiam).
14 When . . . a State creates a liberty interest, the Due Process Clause
requires fair procedures for its vindication—and federal courts will
15 review the application of those constitutionally required
procedures. In the context of parole, we have held that the
16 procedures required are minimal. In Greenholtz, we found that a
prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to California’s received
17 adequate process when he was allowed an opportunity to be heard
and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was
18 denied. “The Constitution,” we held, “does not require more.”
19 Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220 (citations omitted).
20 “Because the only federal right at issue is procedural, the relevant inquiry is what process
21 [the prisoner] received . . . .” Cooke, 562 U.S. at 222. “If the state affords the procedural
22 protections required by Greenholtz and Cooke, that is the end of the matter for purposes of the
23 Due Process Clause.” Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, Petitioner
24 asserts that the Board failed to give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as
25 compared to adults, arbitrarily removed all the mitigating factors previously awarded by the
26 previous Board in support of suitability, and improperly shifted the burden of proof for
27 suitability. (ECF No. 1-2 at 6–7.) The petition does not allege that Petitioner was deprived of an
1 | denied. “[T]herefore, after Cooke, our inquiry is at its end,” Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185,
2 | 1191 (9th Cir. 2011), and the petition fails to state a claim for federal habeas relief.
3 Il.
4 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER
5 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of
6 | habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.
7 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to
8 | the present matter.
9 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District
10 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
11 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within
12 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file
13 | written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and
14 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
15 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will
16 | then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are
17 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
18 | District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
19 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22| Dated: _ September 5, 2025 [spe ey
3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28