Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00690/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00690-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIANE BUTLER, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV. S-02-0690 LKK PAN P

Findings and Recommendation

—NFN—

In April 1986 petitioner killed a friend in Siskiyou

County and fled to Nevada. He was captured and returned to

Siskiyou County for trial for second-degree murder. At trial, he

denied the killing. He was convicted and sentenced to 15 years’

to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. When parole

was denied in August 1999, he pursued administrative remedies,

then sought habeas corpus relief from the state courts and then

began this proceeding.

////

Case 2:02-cv-00690-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 5
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

Under California law, a prisoner including a convicted

murderer serving an indeterminate term (i.e., 15 years to life), 

is entitled to a hearing before a panel composed of members of a

board to determine his suitability for parole. By statute,

parole at some point normally is appropriate and the board “shall

set a release date unless it determines that the gravity of the

current convicted offense or offenses, or the timing and gravity

of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that

consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period

of incarceration. . . .” Cal. Penal Code § 3041(b). 

State regulations prescribe factors for the panel to

consider in determining whether each prisoner is suitable or

unsuitable for parole. Factors supporting a finding of

unsuitability include: (1) whether the prisoner’s offense for

which he is confined was committed in an “especially heinous,

atrocious or cruel manner”; (2) the prisoner’s record of violence

prior to the offense; (3) whether the prisoner has an unstable

social history; (4) whether the prisoner has committed sadistic

sexual offenses; (5) whether the prisoner has a lengthy history

of severe mental problems related to the offense; and (6) whether

the prisoner has engaged in serious misconduct in prison or jail. 

Factors supporting a finding of suitability include: (1) whether

the prisoner has a juvenile record; (2) whether the prisoner has

experienced reasonably stable relationships with others; (3)

whether the prisoner shows signs of remorse; (4) whether the

prisoner committed his crime as the result of significant stress

Case 2:02-cv-00690-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 5
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

in his life; (5) whether the prisoner suffered from Battered

Woman Syndrome when she committed the crime; (6) whether the

prisoner lacks any significant history of violent crime; (7)

whether the prisoner’s present age reduces the probability of

recidivism; (8) whether the prisoner has made realistic plans for

release or has developed marketable skills that can be put to use

on release; and (9) whether the prisoner’s institutional

activities indicate an enhanced ability to function within the

law upon release. 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 2281. 

California’s parole scheme gives rise to a protected

liberty interest in release on parole. McQuillion v. Duncan, 306

F.3d 895, 902 (2002); Jancsek v. Oregon Bd. of Parole, 833 F.2d

1389, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987); Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska

Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979); Biggs v.

Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 915 (9th Cir. 2003); In re Rosenkrantz, 29

Cal. 4th 616 (2003). That is so because the parole statute,

Penal Code § 3041, uses mandatory language (“The panel or board

shall set a release date unless it determines” further

incarceration is necessary in the interest of public safety)

which “‘creates a presumption that parole release will be

granted,” unless the statutorily defined determinations are made. 

Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 378 (1987) (quoting

Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 12). As of 1988, by amendment of the

state constitution, a parole date given can be withdrawn by the

Governor under the same factors considered by the Board. 

////

Case 2:02-cv-00690-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 05/25/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Therefore, petitioner is entitled to the process outlined

in Greenholtz, viz., notice, opportunity to be heard, a statement

of reasons for decision, and limited right to call and crossexamine witnesses. The determination that petitioner is

unsuitable for parole must be supported by some evidence bearing

some indicia of reliability.

July 1999 the parole board denied parole upon the ground

release would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society and

a threat to public safety. This conclusion was based upon

findings the offense was carried out in an especially callous

manner with a disregard for the life and suffering of another and

in a dispassionate manner. Petitioner attacked the victim, shot

the victim seven times, and stabbed him several times, causing

his demise. Petitioner then stole the victim’s property, his

truck and keys and “a lot” of money in the truck. The board also

found petitioner had not sufficiently participated in self-help

and therapy programing and that he needs therapy in order that he

might delve into the crime which he still depicts as a defense of

his own life rather than an attack upon the victim. Until more

progress is made he remains unpredictable and a threat to others. 

Memorandum in Support of Petition, Ex. A. pp 44-45. 

The record clearly contains ample evidence to support the

decision denying parole; indeed, no other decision would have

been reasonable.

It is not disputed the victim was shot seven times,

stabbed and robbed. At trial in 1986, petitioner denied

Case 2:02-cv-00690-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 05/25/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

involvement. At a parole hearing in 1996 petitioner was asked if

he thought he acted in self-defense and he said “yes and no.” 

Memo., Ex. F. At the July 1999 hearing he denied he murdered the

victim; he said the victim was attacking him and “I shot him.” 

He testified the victim was the aggressor and it was necessary to

shoot him. Answer, Ex. C, pp 9-10. He said he could not

remember what he did with the murder weapon. Id. p. 11. He

admitted shooting the victim seven times but said he was

“shooting over his head” and that he “didn’t realize at the time

that [he] was hitting him.” Id. P. 30-31. He said he did not

remember cutting the victim. Id. Petitioner had a favorable

psychological report from Dr. Melvin Macomber but it was not

based upon a truthful account; petitioner told Dr. Macomber that

he had never been involved with drug abuse such as cocaine,

heroin or amphetamines but in fact had been addicted to heroin. 

Memo., Ex. B, p. 2 (psychologist’s report); Answer, Ex. C, pp 32-

33 (evasive and inconsistent answers to questions about heroin

addiction). 

I therefore recommend the petition be denied.

Dated: May 25, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:02-cv-00690-LKK -PAN Document 9 Filed 05/25/05 Page 5 of 5