Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00889/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00889-5/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM OLDRIGHT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

A. P. KANE, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-00889 AWI NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #18]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On February 21, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DENIED. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Clerk

of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment for Respondent. The Findings and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days

of the date of service of the order. 

On March 19, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:05-cv-00889-AWI-LJO Document 21 Filed 04/12/07 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis.

In the objections, Petitioner contends, as he did in his petition, that there was insufficient

evidence to support the Board of Prison Terms (“BPT”)’s denial of parole. As explained by the

Magistrate Judge, due process require “some evidence” to support the parole board's decision finding

Petitioner unsuitable for parole. Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 9115 (9 Cir. 2003); Jancsek v. th

Oregon Bd. of Parole, 833 F.2d 1389, 1390 (9 Cir.1987). The “some evidence” standard is th

minimal and only requires “the record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of [the BPT]

were without support or otherwise arbitrary.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985). 

Due process also requires that the evidence underlying the parole board's decision have some indicia

of reliability. Biggs, 334 F.3d at 915; Jancsek, 833 F.3d at 1390. “A relevant factor in this latter

inquiry is whether the prisoner was afforded an opportunity to appear before, and present evidence

to, the board.” Morales v. California Dept. of Corrections, 16 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9 Cir.1994), th

overruled on other grounds, 514 U.S. 499 (1995). 

The record indicates, and Petitioner does not challenge, that Petitioner was given the

opportunity to appear before the BPT, allowed to speak, and to provide evidence. The nature and

circumstances of Petitioner's crime provides some evidence for denying parole. While Petitioner

characterizes his crime as merely self-defense and chastises the BPT and Magistrate Judge for

allegedly re-trying the case, the fact remains that Petitioner was found guilty of murder after a jury

trial. The BPT could properly deny Plaintiff parole based on Plaintiff’s lack of remorse, continued

minimization of his crime, and the cruel manner in which Plaintiff shot his stepson. 

Petitioner cites Biggs v. Terhune for the proposition that continued reliance in the future on

an unchanging factor – Petitioner’s underlying crime – is not permitted by due process. See Biggs,

334 F.3d at 916-17. The court notes that the Ninth Circuit in Biggs found no due process violation

when parole was denied solely on the nature of the crime. Regardless, the BOP’s decision here was

not based solely on Petitioner’s murder offense. The BOP also focused on Petitioner’s ability to

Case 1:05-cv-00889-AWI-LJO Document 21 Filed 04/12/07 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

comprehend his crime. The BOP’s desire for a recent psychological analysis and report to

determine if Petitioner currently posed a threat to society also provides “some evidence” to deny

parole. According, the court finds that the BOP’s decision to deny parole was supported by some

evidence bearing some indicia of reliability. See, e.g., Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232-33 (9th

Cir. 2005) (upholding denial of parole based on gravity of offense and psychiatric reports); Biggs,

334 F.3d at 916 (upholding denial of parole based solely on gravity of offense and conduct prior to

imprisonment); Morales; 16 F.3d at 1005 (affirming denial of parole based on criminal history, cruel

nature of offense, and need for further psychiatric treatment).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued February 21, 2007, is ADOPTED IN

FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00889-AWI-LJO Document 21 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 3