Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carl Thomas Henderson,Jr v. Tom L. Carey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 27, 2011

CARL THOMAS HENDERSON,JR., PETITIONER,
v.
TOM L. CAREY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner Henderson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a November 3, 2004 decision of the state parole authority that he was not suitable for parole. On November 16, 2010, findings and recommendations issued herein, recommending that the petition be denied because the parole authority's decision was supported by some evidence in the record.

Previously, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had directed "courts in this circuit [to] decide whether the California judicial decision approving the governor's decision rejecting parole was an 'unreasonable application' of the California 'some evidence' requirement, or was 'based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence.'" Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 562-63 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted).

Subsequent to the filing of the pending findings and recommendations, however, the United States Supreme Court held in Swarthout v. Cooke, No. 10-333, slip op. at 4-5 (U.S. January 24, 2011), that a federal court's inquiry into whether an inmate in California received due process in the parole suitability hearing context does not include review of California's "some evidence" requirement. Rather, in the parole suitability context, "the only federal right at issue is procedural." Id. at 6. Thus, this court may only review a parole board's procedures to see that an inmate received an opportunity to be heard and a decision informing him of the reasons he did not qualify for parole. See Swarthout, slip op. at 4-5 (citing Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16).

In light of this new controlling Supreme Court authority, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the findings and recommendations signed on November 15, 2010 and filed on November 16, 2010, are VACATED. New findings and recommendations will issue.

20110127

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.