The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable N. Randy Smith Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge
In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Estep raises two claims. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner's claims are DENIED.
Because the parties are familiar with the factual background as well as the state procedural background of this case, this court highlights here only the events giving rise to the current federal action.
Estep appeared before the Board of Parole Terms ("BPT") on June 24, 2005. At the hearing, Estep was questioned regarding the pre-commitment factors affecting his possible parole, his parole plans, and the post-commitment factors affecting his possible parole. During this questioning, Estep was allowed to answer the questions and present his arguments as to the proper inferences and conclusions that should be drawn from each of these areas of questioning. Much of the discussion centered around Estep's history of problems with anger management.
Estep's claims center around the legality of his removal from the hearing, and the legality of the determination. Estep was removed during the time for closing statements. Preceding his removal, the following exchange took place:
Presiding Commissioner Angele: All right, closing please Mr. Gonzalez. [Attorney from the District Attorney's Office in Sacramento]
Inmate Estep: Can I get a chance to say something here?
Presiding Commissioner Angele: What do you want to say?
Inmate Estep: Ok, on and for the record I John Estep, do not consent to contract with you but freedom of contract is a declaration that.
Presiding Commissioner Angele: Mr. Estep, Mr. Estep, remove the inmate.
Inmate Estep: You denied me my right, you denied me my judicial right. You are denying my rights, ...