IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 14, 2011
MICHAEL HUGHLEY, PETITIONER,
DENNIS K. SISTO, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims, inter alia, that his federal constitutional right to due process was violated by a 2006 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings denying petitioner a parole date.
Although the parties have completed their briefing, respondent did not address petitioner's procedural due process contentions. (See e.g. Dkt. No. 1 (Petition), at 13, 21-23; Dkt. No. 1 (Transcript), at 60-67; Dkt. No. 17 (Traverse) at 1-6.)*fn1 In light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. ___ (2011), No. 10-333, 2011 WL 197627 (Jan. 24, 2011), which held that federal due process protects an inmate's right to procedural safeguards in a state parole proceeding, further briefing is required before the court can rule on the merits of the petition.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Respondent shall, within twenty-one days after the filing date of this order, file and serve a Supplemental Answer addressing petitioner's procedural due process contentions and the application of Swarthout v. Cooke; and
2. Petitioner may, within fourteen days after service of respondent's Supplemental Answer, file and serve a Supplemental Traverse that addresses the same matters.