Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00566/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00566-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD BULPITT,

No. 2:06-cv-00566-MCE-GGH-P

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, et al,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has

filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On December 26, 2006, the magistrate judge filed Findings

and Recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Both parties have filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 2:06-cv-00566-MCE -GGH Document 14 Filed 06/01/07 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the Court rejects the magistrate judge’s recommendation

that Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be

granted. 

In the underlying case, Petitioner applied for a writ of

habeas corpus as a result of his sixth denial of parole by the

Board of Prison Terms (“BPT”) in 2004. BPT found Petitioner 

unsuitable for parole for two reasons: 1) the commitment offense

was exceptionally violent and brutal in that it was carried out

in a calculated, execution-style manner; and 2) the petitioner

had a prior unstable social history. Respondent’s Answer, Exhibit

4. 

In order to grant Petitioner’s application for a writ of

habeas corpus, this Court must do more than simply disagree with

the outcome reached by BPT. There must be a complete lack of

evidence supporting BPT’s decision, In re Dannenberg, 104 P.3d

783, 786 (Cal. 2005); see also In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal. 4th

616,699-670 (2002), and the application of the standard employed

must be more than incorrect, it must be unreasonable, Williams

(Terry) v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 410-411 (2000). 

The Court reviews BPT’s decision denying Petitioner parole

in the context of the “some evidence” standard. “To determine

whether the “some evidence” standard is met... the relevant

question is whether there is any evidence in the record that

could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.”

///

Case 2:06-cv-00566-MCE -GGH Document 14 Filed 06/01/07 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

Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1128

(2006)(internal cite omitted). Specifically, so long as BPT

considers all the relevant factors to granting parole, it is free

to decide what weight to accord to those factors. In re

Rosenkrantz 29 Cal. 4th at 677. The “some evidence” standard is

not particularly stringent and is satisfied where “there is any

evidence in the record that could support the conclusion

reached.” Hill v. Superintendents, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). 

When the evidence relied on is solely immutable, BPT must “point

to factors beyond the minimum elements of the crime for which the

inmate was committed.” In re Dannenberg 104 P.3d at 786.

The Court finds BPT’s decision denying Petitioner parole is

supported by some evidence in the record. BPT considered the

pro-suitability factors of Petitioner: Petitioner attended

Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous while in prison,

that Petitioner had realistic job opportunities upon release,

that Petitioner had an almost perfect prison behavior record, and

that Petitioner had no prior convictions. Respondent’s Answer,

Exhibit 4; generally F&R; 15 CCR § 2402(d). 

 BPT also considered the unsuitability factors of Petitioner:

Petitioner’s crime was committed in an “especially heinous or

cruel manner” and that Petitioner had an unstable social history. 

15 CCR § 2402(c)(1),(3). BPT found that Petitioner’s crime

included elements of first degree murder in that it was committed

“execution style” which surpassed the required elements of

Petitioner’s second degree murder conviction and showed a

heightened degree of brutality and viciousness. 

///

Case 2:06-cv-00566-MCE -GGH Document 14 Filed 06/01/07 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

BPT’s ultimate decision to deny parole was based on immutable

evidence of unsuitability, and it looked to more than the minimum

elements of the committed offense, thereby satisfying the “some

evidence” standard. 

When BPT’s decision is supported by “some evidence”, the 

Court must support BPT’s decision unless it is unreasonable. 

“The fundamental fairness guaranteed by the Due Process Clause 

does not require courts to set aside decisions of prison 

administrators that have some basis in fact.” Hill 472 U.S. at 

456. Furthermore, as the magistrate judge stated initially, “[A] 

federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that 

court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant 

state-court decision applied clearly established federal law 

erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also 

be unreasonable.” F&R:2. 

Specifically, using immutable evidence to support a denial 

of parole is not an unreasonable application of the “some 

evidence” standard which may violate petitioner’s due process. As 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in Sass and recently 

reiterated in Irons, denial based on immutable factors that 

occurred decades ago when all other factors point to suitability 

is sufficient to continue to constitute “some evidence” on which 

the Petitioner can be reasonably denied. Sass, 461 F.3d at 1129; 

Irons v. Carey, 479 F.3d 658, 661(Cal. 2007). 

In the underlying case, BPT’s reliance on immutable evidence 

to support a denial of parole is not unreasonable so as to 

violate due process. Petitioner organized the murder of his

friend who threatened to expose Petitioner’s drug dealing. 

Case 2:06-cv-00566-MCE -GGH Document 14 Filed 06/01/07 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

Petitioner found people willing to kill the victim; Petitioner

supplied them with weapons, and Petitioner organized a meeting

with the victim which Petitioner did not attend but instead

informed those willing to kill the victim of the time and

location the victim could be found. The Court finds the facts

just recited to be sufficient evidence upon which BPT was

justified in denying petitioner parole.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) The Findings and Recommendations of the magistrate judge

are adopted in part and rejected in part as follows:

a) the finding that BPT’s application of the “some

evidence” standard based on immutable factors is

unreasonable and violates Petitioner’s due process is

rejected; and

b) any findings insofar as they support this Order are

adopted; and

c) the recommendation is rejected;

2) The Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00566-MCE -GGH Document 14 Filed 06/01/07 Page 5 of 5