United States District Court Eastern District of California
April 8, 2011
R.J. SUBIA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terry J. Hatter, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
The Court has considered the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, together with the moving and opposing papers.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's holding that federal courts could undertake a substantive review of state courts' application of state law. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 859, 860, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732, 740 (2011). While California's some evidence standard does create a liberty interest in parole, Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 112 S. Ct. 475, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1991)held that there should be no substantive due process examination of a state's laws. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at __, 131 S. Ct. at 861-62, 178 L. Ed. 2d at 742. Therefore, federal courts may only undertake a procedural due process review of habeas petitions concerning parole denials. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at __, 131 S. Ct. at 862, 178 L. Ed. 2d at 743. This review, however, is limited to the standard articulated in Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1,99 S. Ct. 2100, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1979): As long as the prisoner has received notice and an opportunity to be heard during parole proceedings, federal procedural due process has been satisfied. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at __, 131 S. Ct. at 862, 178 L. Ed. 2d at 743.
Here, Petitioner has not alleged a lack of notice or opportunity to be heard. Indeed, the record clearly reflects Petitioner was present, with counsel, at his parole hearing. Therefore, procedural due process is satisfied under Swarthout.
It is Ordered that Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus be, and hereby is, Denied.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.