UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 31, 2012
ELIJAH CLAY, PETITIONER,
A P KANE, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIRGINIA A. Phillips United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY A STATE PRISONER AND DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE [Petition filed on October 19, 2004]
On March 9, 2007, the Court granted Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. No. 29.) Respondent appealed the Court's order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (see Doc. No. 30.), which affirmed, see Clay v. Kane, 384 F. App'x 544 (2010). Respondent then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment, Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 859 (2011) (per curiam). In light of Cooke, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment of this Court and remanded the action. (Order (Doc. No. 42).)
In Cooke, the Supreme Court held that as "[t]here is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners," federal courts may review only whether the California-created liberty interest in parole satisfies the "minimal" procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. at 862. In other words, "[b]ecause the only federal right at issue is procedural, the relevant inquiry is what process . . . Clay received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly." Id. at 863. The Supreme Court held that Clay had received adequate process as a matter of law. Id. at 862. The Court therefore DENIES the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and DISMISSES the action WITH PREJUDICE.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.