Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02147/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02147-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN JOSEPH FIELD,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11cv2147 WQH (BGS)

ORDER

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary, CDCR;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) of the

Honorable Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal, filed on March 30, 2012. 

I. Background

On September 15, 2011, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

challenging (1) the 2009 decision of the Board of Parole Hearings finding Petitioner unsuitable

for parole and (2) challenging “Marsy’s law” permitting the Board of Parole Hearing’ to defer

reconsideration of Petitioner’s suitability for parol as violating the ex post facto clause. (ECF

No. 1). 

On January 12, 2012, Respondent filed an Answer contending that (1) Petitioner’s

challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Board of Parole Hearings’ decision

are foreclosed by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, __ U.S.

__, 131 S.Ct. 859 (Jan. 24, 2011) and (2) the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded

- 1 - 11cv2147 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:11-cv-02147-WQH-BGS Document 10 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that Marsy’s law is not an ex post facto law in Gilman v. Schwarzenegger, 638 F.3d 1101 (9th

Cir. 2011). (ECF No. 4). On March 12, 2012, Petitioner filed a Traverse. (ECF No. 8). 

On March 20, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF

No. 9) recommending that the Petition be denied. The Magistrate Judge stated: “To the extent

[Petitioner] claims that the decision to deny parole was not based on ‘some evidence’ or

otherwise failed to satisfy substantive due process, the claim is foreclosed as a matter of law

because there is no clearly established federal constitutional substantive due process right in

parole.” (ECF No. 9 at 4) (citing Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862). The Magistrate Judge stated:

“[T]he only right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is

whether the inmate received process in accordance with [Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal

& Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979)].” Id. The Magistrate Judge concluded: “[B]ecause

[Petitioner] has not demonstrated—and the record does not show—that his rights under

Greenholtz were denied, [Petitioner’s] parole claims are not cognizable in this habeas

proceeding.” Id. at 5. The Magistrate Judge stated: “[I]n [Gilman, 638 F.3d 1101, the Court

of Appeals for th Ninth Circuit] concluded that ‘Marsy’s Law’ is not a prohibited ex post facto

law ... because the new law provides a mechanism for inmates to request an advance hearing,

there was no significant risk that inmate’s incarceration would be prolonged.” Id. at 6. The

Magistrate Judge concluded: “[T]he state courts’s rejection of his ex post facto challenge was

neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as

determined by the Supreme Court.” Id. 

The Magistrate Judge concluded: 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than seventeen days after

receiving a copy this Report & Recommendation, any party to this

action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on

all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report

and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections

shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties within 10 days of

being served with the objections.

Id. at 7. 

To date, neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

- 2 - 11cv2147 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:11-cv-02147-WQH-BGS Document 10 Filed 05/24/12 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. Discussion

The duties of the district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation of a

Magistrate Judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, “[a] judge of the [district]

court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and

Recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no objections

are filed, the district court need not review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See

Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in this

case. This Court has reviewed the record and the Report and Recommendation in their

entirety. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that the Petition

be denied pursuant to Swarthout v. Cooke, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct. 859 (Jan. 24, 2011) and 

Gilman v. Schwarzenegger, 638 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2011). 

III. Certificate of Appealability

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an

appeal from a final order in a Section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when

it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 

A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). It must appear that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the petitioner’s constitutional

claims debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). The Court

concludes that jurists of reason could not find it debatable whether this Court was correct in

denying the Petition. The Court denies a certificate of appealability. 

- 3 - 11cv2147 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:11-cv-02147-WQH-BGS Document 10 Filed 05/24/12 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is

adopted in its entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. The certificate

of appealability is DENIED. 

DATED: May 24, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv2147 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:11-cv-02147-WQH-BGS Document 10 Filed 05/24/12 Page 4 of 4