United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER (1) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS AND ACTION; AND (2) DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
15, 2018, petitioner Daniel Govind, a California state
prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”), with
attachments (“Petition Attachments” or
“Petition Att.”) and exhibits (“Petition
Exhibits” or “Petition Ex.”). The exhibits
include a transcript of petitioner's November 10, 2016
hearing before the California Board of Parole Hearings
(“Board”). See Petition Ex. Y.
essentially challenges the Board's decision denying him
parole, claiming that such decision violated his due process
rights. More specifically, he alleges: (1) he has improperly
been restrained beyond his minimum eligible parole date of
February 8, 2012; and (2) the Board improperly determined
that he is a threat to the safety and security of the public.
(Petition at 5).
plainly appears from the face of the Petition, the Petition
Attachments, and the Petition Exhibits that petitioner is not
entitled to federal habeas relief as requested, the Petition
is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts (“Habeas Rule 4”).
PERTINENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
27, 1996, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury convicted
petitioner of first degree murder with the use of a deadly
and dangerous weapon (a machete). The court sentenced
petitioner to a term of 26 years to life in state prison.
minimum eligible parole date (“MEPD”) was
February 8, 2012. See Petition Ex. A, Page ID
#57. He had an initial parole hearing on
August 19, 1999 and was denied parole. See Petition
Ex. I. He had subsequent parole hearings on October 22, 2013,
June 4, 2015, and November 10, 2016, and was found unsuitable
for release and denied parole on each such occasion.
See Petition Exs. T, V, X, Y. At the most recent
November 10, 2016 hearing, during which petitioner was
represented by counsel, the Board found petitioner unsuitable
for parole in light of (1) the heinousness of the commitment
offense; (2) his lack of insight; (3) his failure to
participate in sufficient self-help work; and (4) his
unrealistic parole plans. See Petition Ex. Y at Page
ID ## 733-45 (Hearing Transcript, pages 66-78).
thereafter challenged his continued restraint beyond his MEPD
- via petitions for writ of habeas corpus/mandamus - and was
denied relief in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the
California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court.
See Petition Att. at Page ID ## 13, 23, 24, 26, 27;
Petition Ex. C at Page ID ## 91-102.
noted above, on May 15, 2018, petitioner filed the instant
Petition essentially challenging the 2016 parole denial,
i.e., his continued restraint beyond his MEPD.
Summary Dismissal of the Petition Is Appropriate
district court may dismiss a habeas petition summarily
“[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court.” Habeas Rule 4;
Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127-28 (9th Cir.
1998). Here, dismissal of the Petition and this action
pursuant to Habeas Rule 4 is appropriate. See, e.g.,
Ezell v. McDowell, 2017 WL 6868706, at *3-*4 (C.D. Cal.
Nov. 7, 2017) (summarily dismissing habeas claims challenging
parole suitability determination where, as here, petitioner
received all the process to which he was entitled,
i.e., he had an opportunity to be heard and the
Board stated its reasons for denying parole; citing
Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 222 (2011)),
report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 6818657
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2017); Crane v. Beard, 2017 WL
1234096, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2017) (same),
certificate of appealability denied, 2017 WL 6498004
(9th Cir. 2017); Bird v. Board, 2016 WL 3456838, at
*2 (D. Mont. May 16, 2016) (summarily dismissing habeas claim
challenging parole suitability determination as foreclosed by
Swarthout where petitioner received minimal
procedural protection required; such was the “beginning
and the end of federal habeas” analysis (quoting
Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220)), report and
recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 3509452 (D. Mont. June
21, 2016); Aranda v. Seibel, 2016 WL 749061, at
*3-*4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2016) (same); Caldwell v.
Valenzuela, 2013 WL 941970, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11,
Federal Habeas Relief Is Not Available for ...