FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therein, petitioner challenges the decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings (hereinafter "Board") to deny him parole at his suitability hearing held on November 29, 2007. Petitioner claims that the Board's decision violated his federal constitutional right to due process. Petitioner also alleges that the Board improperly required that he attend AA/NA programs, in violation of his First Amendment rights. Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, the undersigned will recommend that petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief be denied.
Petitioner is confined pursuant to a 1981 judgment of conviction entered against him in the Alameda County Superior Court on a charge of second degree murder. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Pursuant to that conviction, petitioner was sentenced to fifteen years to life in state prison. (Id.)*fn1
The parole consideration hearing that is placed at issue by the instant federal habeas petition was held on November 29, 2007. (Id. at 24.) Petitioner appeared at and participated in that hearing. (Id. at 27-119; Doc. No. 1-1, at 1-48.) Following deliberations held at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board panel announced their decision to deny petitioner parole for two years as well as the reasons for that decision. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 49-61.)
Petitioner challenged the Board's 2007 decision denying him parole in a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the Alameda County Superior Court. (Answer, Ex. 1.) That court denied the petition in a decision on the merits of petitioner's claims. (Answer, Ex. 2.) Petitioner subsequently challenged the Board's 2007 decision in a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the California Court of Appeal. (Answer, Ex. 3.) That petition was summarily denied. (Answer, Ex. 4.) Petitioner next filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. (Answer, Ex. 5.) That petition was also summarily denied. (Answer, Ex. 6.)
Petitioner then filed his federal application for habeas relief in this court. Therein, petitioner contends that the Board's 2007 decision finding him unsuitable for parole violated his right to due process because it was not supported by "some evidence" that he posed a current danger to society if released as required under California law. (Doc. No. 1 at 3-4, 7-14.) Petitioner also alleges that the Board improperly required that he attend AA/NA programs, in violation of his First Amendment rights. (Id. at 11-12.)
Applicable to Habeas Corpus Claims An application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody under a judgment of a state court can be granted only for violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A federal writ is not available for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. See Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S.___, ___, 131 S. Ct. 13, 16 (2010); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) sets forth the following standards for granting federal habeas corpus relief:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the 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 presented in the State court proceeding.
For purposes of applying § 2254(d)(1), "clearly established federal law" consists of holdings of the United States Supreme Court at the time of the state court decision. Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000)). Nonetheless, "circuit court precedent may be persuasive in determining what law is clearly established and whether a state court applied that law unreasonably." Stanley, 633 F.3d at 859 (quoting Maxwell v. Roe, 606 F.3d 561, 567 (9th Cir. 2010).
A state court decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if it applies a rule contradicting a holding of the Supreme Court or reaches a result different from Supreme Court precedent on "materially indistinguishable" facts. Price v. Vincent, 538 U.S. 634, 640 (2003). Under the "unreasonable application" clause of § 2254(d)(1), a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle ...