Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Thomas Schuster v. Ken Clark

March 18, 2011

THOMAS SCHUSTER, PETITIONER,
v.
KEN CLARK, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent is represented by Michael G. Lagrama, Esq., of the California Office of the Attorney General.

I. BACKGROUND*fn1

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) following his 1989 conviction in San Bernardino County Superior Court for second degree murder with use of a firearm. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 2.) Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate term of seventeen years to life. (Id.)

In the instant petition, Petitioner does not challenge the validity of his conviction. Petitioner presents two claims. First, he challenges the Board of Parole Hearings' (Board) December 4, 2007 decision finding him unsuitable for release on parole. Petitioner claims that his due process rights were violated because the Board's decision was not supported by some evidence. Second, Petitioner claims that the actions of the board serve to nullify and violate the terms of his plea agreement.

On April 16, 2008, Petitioner filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus in the San Bernardino County Superior Court challenging the Board's 2007 decision. (Answer, Ex. 1, ECF No. 20-1.) On June 4, 2008, the Superior Court denied the petition. (Id. at Ex. 2, ECF No. 20-4.) On July 9, 2008, Petitioner filed a state petition with the California Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District. (Id. at Ex. 3, ECF No. 20-5.) The petition was denied on July 21, 2008. (Id. at Ex. 4, ECF No. 20-8.) Finally, Petitioner also filed a petition with the Supreme Court of California on August 4, 2008, which was denied on January 28, 2009. (Id. at Exs. 5-6, ECF Nos. 20-9, 20-10.)

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 13, 2009. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on July 2, 2010, and Petitioner filed a traverse on August 5, 2010.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Habeas Corpus Review

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 138 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997). The instant petition was filed after the enactment of the AEDPA; thus, it is governed by its provisions.

Under the AEDPA, an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody under a judgment of a state court may be granted only for violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 n. 7, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000). Federal habeas corpus relief is available for any claim decided on the merits in state court proceedings if the state court's adjudication of the claim:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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