Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00521/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00521-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSH THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

R. FOX, Warden, et al., 

Respondents.

1:15-cv-00521 MJS HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION WITHOUT LEAVE TO 

AMEND 

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO 

THE PRESENT MATTER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss 

the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the 

respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See

Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2001). Allegations in a petition that are vague, 

Case 1:15-cv-00521-LJO-MJS Document 5 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 5
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

2

conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. 

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). A petition for habeas corpus should not be 

dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can 

be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

B. Factual Summary

On April 3, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

(Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner challenges a decision of the Board of Parole Hearings 

finding Petitioner unsuitable for parole. (Pet.1) Petitioner asserts the California courts 

unreasonably denied his claims that the Parole Board engaged in an arbitrary decision 

making process and falsified evidence against him during the hearing. (Id.)

C. Federal Review of State Parole Decisions

Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the effective date of the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), the AEDPA applies in 

this proceeding. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 138 L. Ed. 2d 481 

(1997); Furman v. Wood, 190 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999).

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that the custody is 

in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2254(a), 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 n.7, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 146 L. 

Ed. 2d 389 (2000); Wilson v. Corcoran, 131 S.Ct. 13, 16, 178 L. Ed. 2d 276 (2010).

The Supreme Court has characterized as reasonable the decision of the Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that California law creates a liberty interest in parole 

protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, which in turn requires fair 

procedures with respect to the liberty interest. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 861-

62, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (2011).

However, the procedures required for a parole determination are the minimal 

 

1

Petitioner did not provide a date or a copy of the parole hearing transcript with his petition. 

Case 1:15-cv-00521-LJO-MJS Document 5 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 5
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

3

requirements set forth in Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 

442 U.S. 1, 12, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1979). Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862. In 

Swarthout, the Court rejected inmates' claims that they were denied a liberty interest 

because there was an absence of "some evidence" to support the decision to deny 

parole. The Court stated:

There is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally 

released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are 

under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners. (Citation omitted.) When, 

however, a State creates a liberty interest, the Due Process Clause 

requires fair procedures for its vindication-and federal courts will review 

the application of those constitutionally required procedures. In the context 

of parole, we have held that the procedures required are minimal. In 

Greenholtz, we found that a prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to 

California's received adequate process when he was allowed an 

opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why 

parole was denied. (Citation omitted.)

Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862. The Court concluded that the petitioners had received the 

process that was due as follows:

They were allowed to speak at their parole hearings and to contest the 

evidence against them, were afforded access to their records in advance, 

and were notified as to the reasons why parole was denied....

That should have been the beginning and the end of the federal habeas 

courts' inquiry into whether [the petitioners] received due process.

Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862. The Court in Swarthout expressly noted that California's 

"some evidence" rule is not a substantive federal requirement, and correct application of 

California's "some evidence" standard is not required by the Federal Due Process 

Clause. Id. at 862-63. This is true regardless whether Petitioner is challenging a decision 

by the Board to deny parole or the Governor's reversal of a parole grant. Swarthout, 131 

S. Ct. at 860-61; Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) ("[w]e now hold 

that the Due Process Clause does not require that the Governor hold a second suitability 

hearing before reversing a parole decision.").

Here, Petitioner argues that the Board's decision was arbitrary and that it relied on 

falsified evidence. (Pet.) As described by Swarthout, Petitioner has a right to access his 

records in advance and to speak at the parole hearing to contest the evidence 

Case 1:15-cv-00521-LJO-MJS Document 5 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

presented. 131 S.Ct. at 862. In the petition, Petitioner does not assert that his right to 

prior notice of the evidence and an opportunity to contest it at his suitability hearing was 

denied. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that the minimal due process rights 

afforded under Greenholtz and Swarthout have been violated. Petitioner does not assert 

cognizable federal grounds for challenging the parole decision. Petitioner is not entitled 

to habeas relief. 

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend 

unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave 

granted. Jarvis, 440 F.2d at 14. Here, the Court concludes that it would be futile to grant 

Petitioner leave to amend his petition, and recommends the petition to be dismissed.

II. CONCLUSION

Although Petitioner asserts that his right to due process of law was violated by the 

Board's decision, Petitioner has not alleged facts pointing to a real possibility of a 

violation of the minimal requirements of due process set forth in Greenholtz, 442 U.S. 1. 

The Court concludes that it would be futile to grant Petitioner leave to amend and that 

the Petition be dismissed.

III. RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition be DISMISSED without leave 

to amend as Petitioner has not made a showing that he is entitled to relief. Further, the 

Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to assign a District Court Judge to the present matter.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 

Eastern District of California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 

document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendations." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 

(14) days (plus three (3) days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court 

Case 1:15-cv-00521-LJO-MJS Document 5 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 

Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

839 (9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00521-LJO-MJS Document 5 Filed 04/17/15 Page 5 of 5