Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00387/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00387-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFRY IAN COOK,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0387 LKK GGH P

vs.

D.K. SISTO, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

Petitioner alleges that when he pled guilty his attorney told him that when he had

parole suitability hearings, the panels would be composed of members who were unbiased,

impartial and a cross-section of society. Petitioner alleges that the law has since been changed so

that members of the panels are ex-law enforcement officers and victims rights advocates. 

Petitioner alleges that he would not have pled guilty had he known that the law would change in

this manner.

There are two problems with this claim. First, petitioner does not allege that an

actual term of his plea agreement was that the parole suitability panels would be composed of

members of the public who were not ex-law enforcement officers and victims rights advocates. 

Case 2:07-cv-00387-RHW Document 6 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Second, while it is true that due process requires the state decision makers to be

unbiased, see Edward v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 647, 117 S. Ct. 1584, 1588 (1997), petitioner

does not identify any particular parole suitability hearing panel of his own that included biased

members. Nor does petitioner cite an example of bias shown by a panel member at one of his

hearings. For these reasons, this claim is dismissed with leave to amend. Rule 4, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases.

Petitioner also alleges that he has been denied timely parole hearings. Petitioner

argues that had he known that he would not receive timely parole hearings, he would not have

pled guilty. Petitioner does not allege that a specific term of his plea agreement provided that he

receive timely parole hearings. Nor does petitioner describe any of the untimely parole hearings

he allegedly received. Because this claim is vague and conclusory, it is dismissed with leave to

amend. Id. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is

dismissed with thirty days to file an amended petition; failure to file an amended petition within

that time will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action. 

DATED: 4/11/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cook0387.100f

Case 2:07-cv-00387-RHW Document 6 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 2