IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 14, 2011
EDWARD GOZY, PETITIONER,
D.K. SISTO, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER &FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the 2006 decision by the Governor, reversing the grant of parole by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). On November 2, 2010, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot, as the Governor's 2007 decision finding petitioner unsuitable for parole was successfully challenged in a state habeas petition in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and petitioner was released on parole on June 18, 2009.
Petitioner was ordered to respond to respondent's motion to dismiss, on November 4, 2010, but he never filed a response. On January 11, 2011, petitioner was ordered to show cause within 21 days why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. Petitioner has not responded to the order to show cause or otherwise communicated with the court since August 15, 2008.
In addition, on January 24, 2011, the United States Supreme Court in a
per curiam decision found that the Ninth Circuit erred in commanding a
federal review of the state's application of state law in applying the
"some evidence" standard in the parole eligibility habeas context.
Swarthout v. Cooke, 502 U.S. ___, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2011 WL 197627 *2
(Jan. 24, 2011). Quoting, inter alia, Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62,
67 (1991), the Supreme Court re-affirmed that "'federal habeas corpus
relief does not lie for errors of state law.'" Id. While the high
court found that the Ninth Circuit's holding that California law does
create a liberty interest in parole was "a reasonable application of
our cases" (while explicitly not reviewing that holding),*fn1
the Supreme Court stated:
When, however, a State creates a liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires fair procedures for its vindication-and federal courts will review the application of those constitutionally required procedures. In the context of parole, we have held that the procedures required are minimal.
Swarthout v. Cooke, at *2.
Citing Greenholtz,*fn2 the Supreme Court noted it had found under another state's similar parole statute that a prisoner had "received adequate process" when "allowed an opportunity to be heard" and "provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied." Swarthout, at *2. Noting their holding therein that "[t]he Constitution  does not require more," the justices in the instances before them, found the prisoners had "received at least this amount of process: They were allowed to speak at their parole hearings and to contest the evidence against them, were afforded access to their records in advance, and were notified as to the reasons why parole was denied." Id.
The Supreme Court was emphatic in asserting "[t]hat should have been the beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts' inquiry...." Swarthout, at *3. "It will not do to pronounce California's 'some evidence' rule to be 'a component' of the liberty interest...." Id. "No opinion of ours supports converting California's "some evidence" rule into a substantive federal requirement." Id. Thus, it appears there is no federal due process requirement for a "some evidence" review and it also appears that federal courts are precluded from review of the state court's application of its "some evidence" standard.
A review of the petition in this case demonstrates that it is entirely based on alleged violation of California's "some evidence" requirement.
For all the reasons stated above, this case should be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition be dismissed.
If petitioner files objections, he shall also address if a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, as to which issues. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The certificate of appealability must "indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy" the requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
GGH: AB gozy1368