Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-00783/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-00783-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVYN COLEMAN,

NO. CIV. S-96-0783 LKK/PAN P

Petitioner,

v. O R D E R

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Pending before the court is petitioner’s motion for immediate

release from custody. Petitioner, a state prisoner represented by

the Office of the Federal Defender, asserts that his July 2005

parole hearing was biased based on a gubernatorial policy against

parole for inmates convicted of murder. For the reasons set forth

below, the court denies petitioner’s motion. 

In 1974, petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and

other charges. Petitioner was sentenced under the indeterminate

sentencing law to seven-years-to-life imprisonment. Petitioner was

denied parole in 1993 and in 1995. 

Case 2:96-cv-00783-LKK -PAN Document 145 Filed 02/03/06 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

2

In 1997, petitioner filed a writ of habeas corps claiming that

the California Board of Prison Terms had failed to conduct a fair

parole suitability hearing. Specifically, petitioner maintained

that a blanket gubernatorial policy against parole for lifers

convicted of murder prevented him from obtaining a fair parole

hearing. 

In December 2004, the magistrate judge recommended granting

the writ, finding that there was ample evidence of a gubernatorial

policy denying parole to almost all inmates convicted of murder.

This court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendations in May of 2005 and issued a conditional writ. In

July of 2005, the petitioner was given a new hearing before two

commissioners. The Board gave petitioner a 5 year denial of parole

suitability. 

Petitioner brings the pending motion on the grounds that

between the issuance of the findings and recommendations in

December of 2004 and the July 2005 hearing, there was no change in

the gubernatorial policy and thus, the July hearing suffered the

same bias as the previous hearings. 

Petitioner’s counsel explained that although she attempted to

obtain current statistics regarding “parole suitability,

rescission, and Governor’s review decisions during the 2005 and/or

2004-2005 calendar years,” Pet.’s Mot. for Imm. Rel. at 4, she was

unable to receive these statistics. Nonetheless, petitioner

maintains that there “has been no change in the Board’s policies

and practices.” Id. 

Case 2:96-cv-00783-LKK -PAN Document 145 Filed 02/03/06 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

1 The only other evidence put forth by petitioner is

biographical information about one of the board members, Ms.

Fischer, who sat on petitioner’s July 2005 parole board.

Specifically, petitioner points to a government website in which

it is revealed that from 1999 to 2004, she served as executive

director of the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau and before that,

served on the organization’s board of directors for seven years.

Petitioner maintains that this is further evidence that the parole

board was biased. The court cannot agree for the same reasons

stated above: there is simply no evidence of a policy of denying

3

Despite petitioner’s assertion, there is simply no evidence

that the July 2005 parole hearing suffered from the same

constitutional defects as the parole hearings that occurred in the

1990s. Petitioner’s second amended petition, filed in 1997,

contained extensive documentation of a gubernatorial policy in

place in the early 1990s. This documentation included pages of

statistics revealing that almost no California inmates convicted

of murder were being granted parole. Also attached to the petition

were several newspaper articles discussing Governor Pete Wilson’s

policy of personally blocking parole for life prisoners convicted

of murder. It was upon this information that this court originally

granted the writ and petitioner was given a new parole hearing. 

Petitioner fails to present any evidence that the

gubernatorial policy in place in the 1900s continued to be in place

in July 2005, when petitioner had his most recent parole hearing.

Since petitioner filed his amended petition in 1997, a new governor

has been elected and unlike the statistics and news articles

documenting Governor Pete Wilson’s policy of not granting parole

to inmates convicted of murder, petitioner presents no evidence

that Governor Schwarzenegger is following the same policy.1

Case 2:96-cv-00783-LKK -PAN Document 145 Filed 02/03/06 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 parole under the new governor’s administration. 

4

In short, there is no evidence to suggest that the July 2005

parole hearing suffered from the same constitutional defect that

was present in the 1993 and 1995 parole hearings. For these

reasons, petitioner’s motion for immediate release is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 2, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:96-cv-00783-LKK -PAN Document 145 Filed 02/03/06 Page 4 of 4