Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01021/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01021-1/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

KEVIN STRACK,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1021 RRB KJM P

vs.

RICHARD SUBIA, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

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

In his application, petitioner asserts his right to due process of law arising under

the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when, during a parole hearing, members of the parole

board considered information from petitioner’s California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation file that had been obtained from a confidential informant. 

While petitioner has certain Constitutional rights during parole proceedings,

McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002), petitioner does not as he suggests have an

absolute right to have the parole board not consider information obtained from a confidential

source. In any case, this court can only grant a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he is in

custody in violation of the Constitution. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner fails to present anything

Case 2:07-cv-01021-JKS-KJM Document 7 Filed 10/26/07 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

1

 Petitioner has attached the parole board’s decision to his habeas application. The parole

board cited several reasons for denying petitioner parole and none of those decisions appear based

on information obtained from a confidential informant.

2

suggesting that the parole board’s consideration of material obtained from a confidential source

has resulted in petitioner being in custody in violation of the Constitution or even being denied

parole.1 For these reasons, the court will recommend that this action be summarily dismissed. 

See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus 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, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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: October 26, 2007. 

1/mp

stra1021.frs(6.14.07)

Case 2:07-cv-01021-JKS-KJM Document 7 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 2