Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08352/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08352-0/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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CROSSAN D. HOOVER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

C. KOENIG, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 19-cv-08352-RS (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION 

Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from the 

Governor’s decision to deny parole after the Board of Parole Hearings had found him 

suitable for release. Because petitioner’s habeas claims are foreclosed by Supreme Court 

precedent, the petition is DISMISSED. 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner was convicted in 1984 in a California state court of murder and sentenced 

to 26 years to life. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) In 2018 the California Board of Parole Hearings 

found him suitable for parole, but in 2019 the Governor reversed the decision. (Id. at 12, 

23, 131, and 177.) It appears petitioner exhausted his state court remedies before filing the 

instant federal petition. 

Case 3:19-cv-08352-RS Document 4 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 3
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

CASE NO. 19-cv-08352-RS

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 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only claiming he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ 

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be 

granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 

entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the 

allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently 

frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner’s habeas claims are foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011) (“the responsibility for assuring that the 

constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s parole system are properly 

applied rests with California courts,” and not a matter for federal habeas courts). In light 

of Cooke, the Ninth Circuit has held that “there is no substantive due process right created 

by California’s parole scheme.” Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011). 

In the parole context, a prisoner receives constitutionally adequate process when 

“he was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons” 

why parole was denied. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. at 862. “The Constitution does not require 

more.” Id. (quoting Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 

442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979)). The Constitution does not even require an inquiry into whether 

California’s procedures produced the result the evidence required. Id. The Cooke rule is 

the same whether the Board or the Governor denied parole. Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d 

1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that one of the inmates in Cooke had been found 

unsuitable for parole by the Governor rather than the Board). 

Case 3:19-cv-08352-RS Document 4 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 3
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CASE NO. 19-cv-08352-RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In the instant matter, the record shows that petitioner received the required amount 

of process. He had a hearing; was afforded an opportunity to be heard; and was provided a 

statement of reasons parole was denied. Because petitioner received constitutionally 

adequate process, no federal habeas claim lies, and the petition is DISMISSED. 

CONCLUSION

The petition is DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner 

has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a 

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability 

from the Court of Appeals. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of respondent, and 

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January ___, 2020

_________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

24

Case 3:19-cv-08352-RS Document 4 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 3