Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01713/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01713-2/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

 Effective July 1, 2005, California’s Board of Prison Terms was abolished and replaced with 1

the Board of Parole Hearings. Cal. Penal Code § 5075(a) (West 2006) (“As of July 1, 2005, any

reference to the Board of Prison Terms . . . refers to the Board of Parole Hearings.”).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 STANLEY KELLEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1713 MCE DAD P

vs.

J.D. STOKES, Acting Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is challenging the Governor’s March 15,

2004 reversal of the Board of Parole Hearings’ decision finding him suitable for parole. The 1

matter is before the court on respondent’s motion to dismiss.

Respondent asserts that the petition should be dismissed for lack of federal subject

matter jurisdiction because there is no federally protected liberty interest in parole. Respondent

relies on Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 376 F. Supp. 2d 975 (E.D. Cal. 2005), in

which the district court held that California prisoners do not have a liberty interest in parole. The

Case 2:05-cv-01713-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 09/05/06 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

Ninth Circuit has ruled that the district court’s holding in Sass was based on a misreading of In re

Dannenberg, 34 Cal. 4th 1061 (2005). Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, F.3d ,

No. 05-16455, 2006 WL 2506393, at *3 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2006). The Ninth Circuit concluded

that “Dannenberg does not explicitly or implicitly hold that there is no constitutionally protected

liberty interest in parole.” Id. Accordingly, “California inmates continue to have a liberty

interest in parole after In re Dannenberg.” Id. at *1. Under clearly established Supreme Court

authority, “‘California’s parole scheme gives rise to a cognizable liberty interest in release on

parole.’” Id. at *3 (quoting McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir. 2002)). The

liberty interest exists even for prisoners who have not already been granted a parole date. Id.

(citing Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 915 (9th Cir. 2003)). Therefore, in light of the Ninth

Circuit’s holding in Sass, the motion will be denied.

On June 7, 2006, petitioner filed a motion styled, “Motion For the Court To Take

Jurisdiction And Judicial Notice Of Related Proceedings.” Petitioner requests that the court

include in his pending petition the Board of Parole Hearings’ recent decision on May 31, 2006,

finding petitioner unsuitable for parole. The petitioner’s motion will be denied. The Board’s

recent action is not properly before this court since petitioner has not exhausted state court

remedies to challenge the May 31, 2006 parole denial. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ November 1, 2005 motion to dismiss is denied;

2. Respondents shall file and serve a new response to petitioner’s habeas petition

within thirty days after this order is filed. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An

answer to the petition shall be accompanied by all transcripts and other documents relevant to the

issues presented in the habeas petition. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

3. If the response to petitioner’s habeas petition is an answer, petitioner’s reply, if

any, shall be filed and served within thirty days after the answer is served;

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01713-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 09/05/06 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

4. If the response to petitioner’s habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty

days after the motion is served, and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed and served within

fifteen days after petitioner’s opposition is served; and

5. Petitioner’s June 7, 2006 motion styled, “Motion For the Court To Take

Jurisdiction And Judicial Notice Of Related Proceedings,” is denied. 

DATED: September 1, 2006.

DAD:4

kell1713.sassmtd

Case 2:05-cv-01713-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 09/05/06 Page 3 of 3