Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02637/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02637-3/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

 Claims arising under state law are not cognizable in a § 2254 action. 28 U.S.C. 1

§ 2254(a). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE J. WOODS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV-06-2637 LKK KJM P

vs.

ROBERT A. HOREL, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner currently is serving a sentence of seventeenyears-to-life imprisonment for second degree murder, imposed in 1988. Respondent has filed a

motion to dismiss, arguing in essence that petitioner’s February 8, 2007 amended petition is too

vague.

In his amended petition, petitioner challenges the fact that he has not yet been

paroled. See, e.g., Am. Pet. at 5. The only arguably cognizable federal claim petitioner presents 1

is that the decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” that releasing

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02637-LKK -KJM Document 14 Filed 01/29/08 Page 1 of 3
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

petitioner unreasonably endangers public safety. See Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 851 (9thCir.

2007). 

While petitioner asserts he has been denied parole without the evidence required

under the Constitution to support such a decision, petitioner fails to present any facts related to

his case in support of this argument in his petition. Petitioner fails even to challenge a particular

parole board decision; it is not clear how many times petitioner has been denied parole and which

denials petitioner believes resulted in a violation of his Constitutional rights. Rather, petitioner’s

habeas petition is primarily a discussion of law without any discussion of facts applicable to him. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the court acknowledges petitioner’s request that

the court take “judicial notice” of certain excerpts of transcripts of parole proceedings. It appears

from this request that petitioner is suggesting that the parole denials he wishes to challenge are

those referenced in the transcript excerpts. The excerpts are part of the record before the court as

an attachment to petitioner’s opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss and may be

considered for any appropriate purpose. There is no need to “judicially notice” the transcripts;

even if the court did it would not alter the conclusion reached here.

Given that petitioner might be able to further amend his petition to incorporate the

requisite factual support for his claims, and his status as a pro se litigant, the court ordinarily

would be inclined to grant petitioner leave to amend to cure the deficiencies in his habeas

petition. Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (pleadings by pro se litigants

should be construed liberally). However, even properly supported claims cannot be granted on

habeas review unless a petitioner has first presented the claims to the California Supreme Court. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). There is no indication before the court that petitioner presented any

claims other than those presented in his amended habeas petition to that court. See Am. Pet. at 3

(response to question 11 indicates claims presented to the state court contained “same grounds

raised in this petition”). Therefore, it does not appear petitioner could amend his habeas petition

to proceed here without running afoul of the exhaustion requirement.

Case 2:06-cv-02637-LKK -KJM Document 14 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Because any attempt to amend would be futile, the court will recommend that

petitioner’s amended application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. See O’Bremski v.

Mass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s July 2,

2007 request for judicial notice is denied. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s June 5, 2007 motion to dismiss be granted; and 

2. This action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 28, 2008.

1

wood2637.157(1)

Case 2:06-cv-02637-LKK -KJM Document 14 Filed 01/29/08 Page 3 of 3