Case ID: f-appx_428/html/0669-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark DELAPLANE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
    No. 09-56910.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 2010.
    Filed April 13, 2011.
    
      Roger Sandberg Hanson, Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
    Amanda Lloyd, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Anne Neill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General (SAC), Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, CLIFTON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Warden John Marshall appeals from the district court’s grant of the petition for habeas corpus of Mark Delaplane. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011), we hold that Delaplane’s federal right to due process was not violated. Delaplane “was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Id. at 862. Thus, Delaplane is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.

Delaplane argues that Cooke did not address whether the Constitution requires a showing of some evidence of future danger before states can deny parole. This argument has been rejected by our precedent. See Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011). Delaplane also argues that the Governor violated his due process rights by not granting Delaplane a hearing before reversing his grant of parole. This argument was raised for the first time in a letter filed pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. It was thus made too late, and is not properly before us. See id. at 1191 n. 5.

REVERSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.