United States District Court, C.D. California
RODNEY S. PETILLO, Petitioner,
BRIAN DUFFY, Respondent.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ALICIA G. ROSENBERG, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2010 parole denial. For the reasons discussed below, it appears that Petitioner's claims are not cognizable on federal habeas review.
The court therefore orders Petitioner to show cause on or before April 9, 2015 why the court should not recommend dismissal of the petition.
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
In 1986 Petitioner pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years to life. (Petition at 2.)
On September 23, 2010, the Parole Board denied Petitioner parole. (Petition, Attached Hearing transcript at 1 & Decision at 9.)
On June 18, 2012, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on June 27, 2012. California Appellate Courts Case Information online docket in Case No. B241915. On June 20, 2013, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on August 21, 2013. (Petition, Attached.)
On February 3, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody in this court. He raises three grounds. ( Id. at 5-6.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A federal court may not grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless it (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." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).
"[C]learly established Federal law'... is the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court rendered its decision." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). A state court's decision is "contrary to" clearly established Federal law if (1) it applies a rule that contradicts governing Supreme Court law; or (2) it "confronts a set of facts... materially indistinguishable" from a decision of the Supreme Court but reaches a different result. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002). A state court's decision cannot be contrary to clearly established Federal law if there is a "lack of holdings from" the Supreme Court on a particular issue. Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70, 77, 127 S.Ct. 649, 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006).
Under the "unreasonable application prong" of section 2254(d)(1), a federal court may grant habeas relief "based on the application of a governing legal principle to a set of facts different from those of the case in which the principle was announced." Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 76; see also Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24-26, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (state court decision "involves an unreasonable application" of clearly established ...