IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 11, 2012
JOHN DUNN, PETITIONER,
GARY SWARTHOUT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to state grounds for federal habeas relief, filed on January 17, 2012, to which petitioner filed his opposition on February 2, 2012. Petitioner in his habeas application challenges a prison disciplinary guilty finding for fighting that resulted in 61 days of credit loss, which petitioner also claims could lead to a seven-to-fifteen-year denial by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH). Petition, at dkt # 1, p. 1. Petitioner states that he faces a possible multiple-year denial of up to fifteen years at his next parole hearing, which was evidently scheduled for May 25, 2012. Id., at 13. Petitioner alleges various due process violations regarding the disciplinary hearing and finding. See Petition.
As a threshold matter and before considering the pending motion, the parties will be required to inform the court, within seven days, whether petitioner did, in fact, have a parole hearing in May of 2012, and, if so, whether or not the guilty finding petitioner received in the disciplinary hearing for fighting at issue herein was expressly noted by the BPH at the hearing and had an impact on petitioner's parole eligibility.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.