United States District Court Eastern District of California
August 7, 2009
KHALIFAH E.D. SAIF'ULLAH, PETITIONER,
ROBERT A. HOREL, ACTING WARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terry J. Hatter, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
In 2005, the California Board of Prison Terms ("CBPT") (now known as the Board of Parole Hearings) found Petitioner unsuitable for parole. Petitioner challenged the CBPT decision by filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the California Supreme Court, and his petition was denied.
Absent statutory authorization permitting individuals to prosecute an action on behalf of others, pro se plaintiffs are prohibited from pursuing claims on behalf of others. Therefore, Petitioner's petition on behalf of thirty-one other inmates is not valid.
It is Ordered that the Class Action be, and hereby is, Dismissed.
The California Supreme Court's decision, was not contrary to, or did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. Neither, was it based on an unreasonable determination of facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
A parole board's decision denying parole, deprives a California prisoner of due process with respect to his liberty interest in receipt of parole release date, if the board's decision is not supported by some evidence in the record. Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2007). In denying parole, the CPTB relied on Petitioner's extensive criminal history. The CPTB, further, supported its decision by citing Petitioner's extensive misconduct in prison. Thus, CPTB found that Petitioner posed a threat to others because, if he could not behave in the structured environment of prison, he was not ready for release. Thus, the record contains examples of the "some evidence" standard being met, and the California Supreme Court's decision is affirmed.
It is further Ordered that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be, and hereby is, Denied.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.