Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02398/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02398-3/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

JOHN BURNIGHT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2398 MCE CHS P

vs.

THOMAS CAREY, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner John Burnight is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Burnight challenges the September 15,

2004, decision by the Board of Prison Terms (hereinafter Board) finding him unsuitable for

parole. 

In the July 28, 2009, Case Reassignment Order, the District Judge assigned to this

matter indicated that it may be prudent to await the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hayward v.

Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008), reh’g en banc granted, 527 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. May 16,

2008). This matter therefore may eventually be stayed pending that decision. 

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 16
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

II. CLAIMS

Burnight’s habeas petition raises three claims as follow, verbatim:

A. Petitioner is entitled to release on parole because the Board of Parole Hearings

decision to deny parole was not supported by any relevant, reliable evidence in

the record in violation of petitioner’s right to due process of law under the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments and the California Constitution;

B. Petitioner is entitled to release on parole because the Board of Parole Hearings

failed to afford him an individualized consideration of all factors relevant to

parole decisions in violation of petitioner’s right to due process of law under the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the California Constitution; and

C. Petitioner is entitled to release on parole because the Board of Prison Hearings

decision at the September 15, 2004 hearing was invalid because petitioner’s term

of imprisonment expired on June 14, 2004 when his presumptive release date

passed without a subsequent parole consideration hearing being conducted. 

///// 

Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, the undersigned

will recommend that this petition for habeas corpus relief be denied.

III. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The Board recited the facts of Burnight’s commitment offense as follows:

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER RISEN: Okay. I’ll go to the

Probation Officer’s report. It looks like it’s about page three. 

Early on the morning of June 30th, 1989, the defendant or prisoner

went to the home of his friend, the victim, Steve and I’ll spell the

last name, Z-E-E-H-A-N-D-E-L-A-A-R. How do you pronounce

that?

MS. CAMERON: Zeehandelaar. 

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER RISEN: Zeehandelaar, thank you. 

“The prisoner had with him a shotgun belonging to his

grandfather. About a month before the incident, the

prisoner had sawed off the barrel of the shotgun. 

According to information from the prisoner’s girlfriend, the

prisoner’s grandmother - -“

Wait.

“According to information from the defendant’s girlfriend

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 2 of 16
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

and defendant’s grandmother, the prisoner had gone to the

victim’s home to confront the victim with misinformation

that the victim had presented to the girlfriend. The victim

lived about one and a half blocks away from the prisoner,

who walked to the home. The prisoner put the gun in some

bushes in front of the house and then went to the front door,

where the victim answered the door and the prisoner spoke

with him. The victim - - the defendant and the victim

argued. The defendant then backed - - then went back to

the house and picked up the double-barreled shotgun and

returned to the front door. He shot one round directly into

the victim’s throat. The shotgun was apparently touching

the victim’s neck at the time it was fired. The victim’s

brother approached the front door and saw the defendant

standing over the victim’s body. The defendant ran to his

girlfriend’s house, told her what he had done, drove to

Santa Rita, crashing into a post out - - just outside the

office and told the deputies that he had just shot somebody. 

The victim was pronounced dead upon arrival at Eden, ED-E-N, Hospital.”

/////

Answer, Exhibit 2 at 12-14.

On January 13, 1993, Burnight pled guilty to second degree murder and on March

22, 1993, was sentenced to a term of 15 years to life. Answer, Ex. 1 at 2. On September 15,

2004, the Board held Burnight’s Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing. Answer, Ex. 2 at 2. 

At the conclusion of that hearing the Board found him unsuitable for parole. Id. at 63-68. 

B. State Habeas Review

On December 17, 2004, Burnight filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the

Alameda County Superior Court. That petition was denied in a short but reasoned opinion on

January 12, 2005. Answer, Ex. 3 at 2. Burnight then filed a petition in the California Court of

Appeal for the First Appellate District, which was summarily denied on March 1, 2005. Answer,

Ex. 4 at 2. Burnight then filed a petition in the California Supreme Court. That petition was

summarily denied on January 25, 2006, with citations to People v. Duvall, 9 Cal. 4th 464 (1995),

In re Miller, 17 Cal. 2d 734 (1941) and In re Rosenkranz, 29 Cal. 4th 616 (2002). Answer, Ex. 5

at 2. Finally, Burnight filed this federal petition on October 31, 2006. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 3 of 16
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

IV. APPLICABLE STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW

A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only on the basis of

some transgression of federal law binding on the state courts. See Peltier v. Wright, 15 F.3d 860,

861 (9th Cir. 1993); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v.

Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)). A federal writ is not available for alleged error in the

interpretation or application of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991);

Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000); Middleton, 768 F.2d at 1085. Habeas

corpus cannot be utilized to try state issues de novo. Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 377

(1972). 

This action is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (“AEDPA”). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336 (1997); Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d

1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2003). Section 2254(d) sets forth the following standards for granting

habeas corpus relief:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall

not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on

the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the

claim -

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved

an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or 

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See also Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792-93 (2001); Williams v.

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000); Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 F.3d 1223, 1229 (9th Cir. 2001). The

court looks to the last reasoned state court decision as the basis for the state court judgment. 

Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004). Where the state court reaches a

decision on the merits but provides no reasoning to support its conclusion, a federal habeas court

independently reviews the record to determine whether habeas corpus relief is available under

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 4 of 16
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

section 2254(d). Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003); Delgado v. Lewis, 223

F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2000).

/////

V. DISCUSSION OF PETITIONER’S CLAIMS

A. Decision Was Not Supported By Evidence

1) Description Of Claim

Burnight argues that because the circumstances of his commitment offense were

not relevant reliable evidence that he was then currently an unreasonable risk of danger to

society, the Board’s decision was not supported by some evidence and violated his liberty

interest in parole. Petition at 18-25. 

2) State Court Opinion

The Alameda County Superior Court rejected this claim finding that, “there was

certainly some evidence, including, but not limited to the committing offense, and Petitioner’s

lack of suitable parole plans.” Answer, Ex. 4 at 2.

3) Applicable Law And Discussion

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state action that

deprives a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. A person alleging due

process violations must first demonstrate that he or she was deprived of a liberty or property

interest protected by the Due Process Clause and then show that the procedures attendant upon

the deprivation were not constitutionally sufficient. Kentucky Dep’t of Corrections v.

Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 459-60 (1989); McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir.

2002).

A protected liberty interest may arise from either the Due Process Clause of the

United States Constitution or state laws. Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 373 (1987). 

The United States Constitution does not, of its own force, create a protected liberty interest in a

parole date, even one that has been set. Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14, 17-21 (1981). 

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 5 of 16
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

6

However, “a state’s statutory scheme, if it uses mandatory language, ‘creates a presumption that

parole release will be granted’ when or unless certain designated findings are made, and thereby

gives rise to a constitutional liberty interest.” McQuillion, 306 F.3d at 901 (quoting Greenholtz

v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal, 442 U.S. 1, 12 (1979)). In this regard, it is clearly established that

California’s parole scheme provides prisoners sentenced in California to a state prison term that

provides for the possibility of parole with “a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the

receipt of a parole release date, a liberty interest that is protected by the procedural safeguards of

the Due Process Clause.” Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Sass v.

Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2006); Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910,

914 (9th Cir. 2003); McQuillion, 306 F.3d at 903; and Allen, 482 U.S. at 377-78 (quoting

Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 12)). Accordingly, this court must examine whether the deprivation of

petitioner’s liberty interest in this case violated due process. 

It has been clearly established by the United States Supreme Court “that a parole

board’s decision deprives a prisoner of due process with respect to this interest if the board’s

decision is not supported by ‘some evidence in the record,’ Sass, 461 F.3d at 1128-29 (citing

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985)); see also Biggs, 334 F.3d at 915 (citing

McQuillion, 306 F.3d at 904), or is “otherwise arbitrary,” Hill, 472 U.S. at 457. 

“The ‘some evidence’ standard is minimally stringent,” and a decision will be

upheld if there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the

fact-finder. Powell v. Gomez, 33 F.3d 39, 40 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d

703, 705 (9th Cir. 1987)); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1105 (9th Cir. 1986). 

However, “the evidence underlying the [ ] decision must have some indicia of reliability.” 

Jancsek v. Oregon Bd. of Parole, 833 F.2d 1389, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). See also Perveler v.

Estelle, 974 F.2d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir. 1992). Determining whether the “some evidence”

standard is satisfied does not require examination of the entire record, independent assessment of

the credibility of witnesses, or the weighing of evidence. Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1105. The

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 6 of 16
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

7

question is whether there is any reliable evidence in the record that could support the conclusion

reached. Id.

In finding Burnight unsuitable for parole, the Board relied upon: a) the

circumstances of the commitment offense and b) Burnight’s lack of adequate parole plans. 

a. Circumstances Of The Commitment Offense

The circumstances of the commitment offense are one of fifteen factors relating to

an inmate’s unsuitability or suitability for parole under California law. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 §

2402(c)(1)-(d). When denial is based on these circumstances the California courts have stated

that:

A prisoner’s commitment offense may constitute a circumstance

tending to show that a prisoner is presently too dangerous to be

found suitable for parole, but the denial of parole may be

predicated on a prisoner’s commitment offense only where the

Board can “point to factors beyond the minimum elements of the

crime for which the inmate was committed” that demonstrate the

inmate will, at the time of the suitability hearing, present a danger

to society if released. [In re] Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th [1061] at

1071, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 104 P.3d 783 (Cal.2005). Factors

beyond the minimum elements of the crime include, inter alia, that

“[t]he offense was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated

manner,” that “[t]he offense was carried out in a manner which

demonstrates an exceptionally callous disregard for human

suffering,” and that “[t]he motive for the crime is inexplicable or

very trivial in relation to the offense.” Cal.Code Regs., tit. 15

§ 2402(c)(1)(B), (D)-(E).” 

/////

Irons, 505 F.3d at 852-53; see also In re Weider, 145 Cal. App.4th 570, 588 (2006) (to support

denial of parole, the “factors beyond the minimum elements of the crime” “must be predicated

on “some evidence that the particular circumstances of [the prisoner’s] crime-circumstances

beyond the minimum elements of his conviction-indicated exceptional callousness and cruelty

with trivial provocation, and thus suggested he remains a danger to public safety.”) 

Such circumstances may include “rehearsing the murder, executing of a sleeping

victim, stalking,” id., or evidence that the defendant “acted with cold, calculated, dispassion, or

that he tormented, terrorized or injured [the victim] before deciding to shoot her; or that he

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 7 of 16
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

8

gratuitously increased or unnecessarily prolonged her pain and suffering.” In re Smith, 114 Cal.

App.4th at 367. 

With respect to triviality, all murder is trivial to some degree. Therefore for

purposes of comparison and to fit the statutory definition the motive must be materially less

significant (or more “trivial”) than those which typically drive people to commit murder and

therefore is more indicative of a risk of danger to society if the prisoner is released than is

ordinarily presented. In re Scott, 119 Cal. App.4th 871, 891 (2004). 

The ultimate inquiry however “is not merely whether an inmate’s crime was

especially callous, or shockingly vicious or lethal, but whether the identified facts are probative

to the central issue of current dangerousness when considered in light of the full record before

the Board or the Governor.” In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221 (Cal. 2008); In re

Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1070-71 (Cal. 2005). 

With respect to the circumstances of the commitment offense, the Board stated: 

The offense was carried out in an especially cruel and callous

manner. These conclusions are drawn from the statement of facts,

wherein the prisoner was angry with the victim because the victim

had allegedly given some misinformation to the prisoner’s

girlfriend. The prisoner, late at night, obtained a shotgun from the

trunk of his car. He had previously sawed the barrel off. He

walked over to the victim’s house that was approximately a block

and a half away. He hid the shotgun in the bushes. He then made

contact with the victim at the front door. The prisoner and the

victim had an argument over the alleged misinformation. The

prisoner then stepped back from the porch, went over to where the

shotgun was, took it out it was a double-barreled shotgun, and

walked up to the prisoner [sic] and placed it on his chest. A few

moments later, the gun was raised up to the victim’s throat and two

- - a shot was fired, killing the victim instantly. The prisoner then

fled the scene and went to a sheriff’s department or the police

department, where he gave himself up later that day. 

Answer, Ex. 2 at 63-64. 

Thus, because of “misinformation” Burnight obtained a shotgun, which he had

previously sawed-off, and in the dead of night walked to the home of his friend. Burnight then

concealed the shotgun and confronted his friend. At some point Burnight retrieved the shotgun,

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 8 of 16
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 Burnight’s “minimum term” is not to be confused with his “minimum eligible parole

date.” A minimum term is the minimum number of years imposed by a prisoner’s sentence, in

this case 15 years. A “Minimum Eligible Parole Date,” or “MEPD,” is the “earliest date on

which an Indeterminate Sentence Law or life prisoner may be legally released on parole”

9

placed the barrel against his friend’s throat, and shot him. 

Arriving at the home of one’s friend in the middle of the night and concealing a

weapon which you later use to shoot that friend in the throat could be properly characterized as

acting “with cold, calculated, dispassion.” Further, the motive for the murder, a dispute over

“misinformation,” could properly be characterized as a trivial motive for murder. More

importantly, the identified facts of Burnight’s commitment offense were probative to the central

issue of his then current dangerousness when considered in light of the full record before the

Board. That record included Burnight’s lack of appropriate parole plans. Burnight however

objects to the Board’s use of the circumstances of his commitment offense, arguing that “reliance

on these unchanging factors violates due process and runs contrary to the public interest

purposes of rehabilitation and deterrence.” Petition at 25 (quoting Biggs, 334 F.3d at 916-17).

 While it is true that the continued reliance over time on unchanging factors such

as the circumstances of the commitment offense may result in a due process violation, a parole

denial based solely on unchanging factors can initially satisfy due process requirements. Biggs,

334 F.3d at 916. In Irons, the Ninth Circuit explained that Biggs represents the law of the circuit

that continued reliance on a prisoner’s commitment offense or conduct prior to imprisonment

could result in a due process violation over time. Irons, 505 F.3d at 853. Nevertheless, the court

held that, given the egregiousness of the commitment offense, due process was not violated

when the Board deemed a prisoner unsuitable for parole prior to expiration of his minimum term.

Id. at 846. 

Burnight pled guilty on January 13, 1993, and was sentenced to a term of 15 years

to life on March 22, 1993. Thus at the time of his September 15, 2004 hearing Burnight had

only served eleven years of his 15 year minimum term.1 Furthermore, his commitment offense

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 9 of 16
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 pursuant to California regulations. See Cal. Code Regs., titl. 15, § 3000; see also Cal. Code

Regs., tit. 15, § 2000(b)(67). As of the 2004 hearing, Burnight’s MEPD was April 23, 1999. 

10

could properly be characterized as being “egregious” as Burnight shot his friend in the neck over

an extremely trivial dispute. The Board therefore would not have violated due process if it had

deemed Burnight unsuitable for parole based solely on the circumstances of his commitment

offense. The Board however also took issue with Burnight’s parole plans. 

b. Parole Plans

Upon his release, Burnight planned to live with his mother in Hayward,

California. Answer, Ex. 2 at 36. At the 2004 hearing the victim’s sister argued against

Burnight’s parole and requested that if the Board were to grant Burnight parole that he not be

allowed to live in the city of Hayward because the victim’s entire family still lived in that city. 

Id. at 59. The victim’s sister noted that her family previously had “run-ins” with Burnight’s

family since the time of the commitment offense. Id.

The Board found Burnight’s parole plans insufficient because Burnight would

have been living in close proximity to the victim’s family. Id. at 64. The Board stated:

His parole plans, the prisoner has parole plans to parole to

Hayward. I believe that’s in the county where the crime occurred

and the victim’s next of kin apparently still live in that area and

they are afraid today, I guess, and opposed to him being released to

that area. And I believe the parole rules are that he cannot be

within at least 35 miles of the family of the victim, so he’s going to

have to come up with some other parole plans for a residence.

 

 Id. at 65. After the Board rendered its decision, Burnight noted that at his previous hearing he

had been informed that if paroled he must reside in Alameda County, which includes the city of

Hayward. Id. at 67. The Board acknowledged that there was a recent change to the law that

allowed the Board to parole Burnight to any county in California. Id. Given the new flexibility,

Presiding Commissioner Risen did not think it was “a reasonable idea” to parole Burnight to the

county where the victim’s family still lived. Id. at 68. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 10 of 16
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

11

Under California law, the Board is authorized to consider “any other information

which bears on the prisoner’s suitability for release.” Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402(b). While

it appears the lack of adequate parole plans was not because of Burnight’s failure, but instead a

change in the law, the Board nevertheless was within it’s right to consider this factor,

particularly given the nature of Burnight’s crime. Had this been the sole factor relied upon by

the Board, it would likely be insufficient to justify a denial. But that was not the case. 

4) Conclusion

The facts of Burnight’s commitment offense were probative to his current

dangerousness when considered in light of the full record before the Board. Burnight murdered

his friend in a gruesome manner for an inexplicable reason. While that may one day be

insufficient to find him unsuitable for parole, it was sufficient at the time of his 2004 hearing as

Burnight had not yet served his minimum term. Moreover, Burnight’s parole plans included

returning to the city of his commitment offense, where the victim’s family still resided, and

which the Board found to be unreasonable.

Based on this record there was evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that at

the time of the hearing Burnight was unsuitable for parole. The state court’s rejection of this

claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established

constitutional law and Burnight is not entitled to relief on this claim. 

B. Individualized Consideration

1) Description Of Claim

Burnight argues that the Board’s decision violated his right to due process

because the Board failed to given him an individualized consideration of all factors relevant to

parole decisions. Petition at 29. Burnight also argues that the Board failed to consider special

conditions of parole under which Burnight could have been safely paroled and failed to consider

his minimum term in relation to the Board’s “matrix of base terms.” Id. at 29-37.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 11 of 16
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

12

2) Applicable Law And Discussion

With respect to Burnight’s claim that he was not afforded an individualized

consideration by the Board, the entirety of this claim consists of one paragraph of boilerplate law

without any factual allegations or argument. It would be a strain to characterize this paragraph

as even conclusory allegations, however, even conclusory allegations, without more, cannot

provide a basis for habeas relief. See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir. 1995)

(stating that conclusory allegations are not sufficient to support habeas relief). 

Burnight however does allege the Board failed to consider specific factors of

suitability in later portions of his petition, specifically his lack of a juvenile record, his age, and

his exemplary behavior while incarcerated. Petition at 34-35. Assuming Burnight intended this

argument to buttress his claim that he was not given an individualized consideration, the record

belies this claim. 

The record shows that Burnight’s hearing consisted of a lengthy individualized

examination of the relevant factors of parole suitability and unsuitability as they applied to him. 

See Answer, Ex. 2 at 2-68. While the Board may not have mentioned every factor, or Burnight

may not agree with the Board’s conclusions, there is no evidence the Board did not afford him an

“individualized consideration” of all relevant factors.

With respect to Burnight’s claim that the Board failed to consider special

conditions of parole, Burnight argues that the Board’s decision violated his right to due process

because the Board “failed to fulfill its legislative mandate under the parole statutes and its own

regulations by denying his release on parole without considering a legitimate alternative[] to

ensure ‘the prisoner may safely be released to the community.’ ” Petition at 33 (quoting Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402(b)). Therefore, Burnight argues, the Board’s determination that he

was unsuitable for parole was “arbitrary and capricious.” Id. 

Section 2402 of the California Code of Regulations provides that:

(a) General. The panel shall first determine whether the life

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 12 of 16
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

13

prisoner is suitable for release on parole. Regardless of the length

of time served, a life prisoner shall be found unsuitable for and

denied parole if in the judgment of the panel the prisoner will pose

an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison.

(b) Information Considered. All relevant, reliable information

available to the panel shall be considered in determining

suitability for parole. Such information shall include the

circumstances of the prisoner’s social history; past and present

mental state; past criminal history, including involvement in other

criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and

other commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and

after the crime; past and present attitude toward the crime; any

conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special

conditions under which the prisoner may safely be released to the

community; and any other information which bears on the

prisoner's suitability for release. Circumstances which taken alone

may not firmly establish unsuitability for parole may contribute to

a pattern which results in a finding of unsuitability.

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2402(a)-(b) (emphasis added). Thus, while it is true that the Board

must consider special conditions of release, when the subsections are read together and in their

entirety, it is clear that “special conditions” are merely one type of “relevant, reliable

information” that the Board may consider in determining whether Burnight was “suitable for

release on parole.” 

Here the Board thoroughly examined “all relevant, reliable information” and

determined that Burnight’s release on parole would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to

society. Burnight has failed to show any violation of the applicable regulations, let alone his

right to due process. 

With respect to Burnight’s argument that the Board failed to consider his

minimum term in relation to the Board’s matrix of base terms, while it is true that California

regulations contain a matrix of suggested base terms that prisoners with indeterminate sentences

should serve before they are released on parole, the matrix is not referenced until the prisoner

has been found suitable for parole. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 2403 (a)-(b). The Board

found Burnight unsuitable for parole and therefore was not required to reference the matrix. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 13 of 16
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

14

For all these reasons, Burnight has failed to present any evidence of a

constitutional violation and this claim should therefore be denied. 

C. Presumptive Release Date

1) Description of Claim

Burnight argues that at his June 14, 2002, parole consideration hearing he was

denied parole for a period of two years. Petition at 41. He argues that this decision “created a

new presumptive release date . . . of June 14, 2004) and that when “this date passed without the

Board conducting a parole suitability hearing . . . his term of confinement was completed and

any action by the Board under Penal Code section 3041(b) was invalid.” Id. at 41-42. 

2) Applicable Law And Discussion

To the extent Burnight is alleging a state law violation, such a claim is not

cognizable in federal habeas. A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)

only on the basis of some transgression of federal law binding on the state courts. Middleton,

768 F.2d at 1085; Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983). It is unavailable for

alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. Middleton, 768 F.2d at 1085; see

also Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 814 (9th Cir. 1987); Givens v. Housewright, 786 F.2d 1378,

1381 (9th Cir. 1986). Habeas corpus cannot be utilized to try state issues de novo. Milton, 407

U.S. at 377.

The Supreme Court has reiterated the standards of review for a federal habeas

court. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991). In Estelle, the Supreme Court reversed the

decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had granted federal habeas relief.

The Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the evidence was incorrectly

admitted under state law since, “it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state

court determinations on state law questions.” Id. at 67-68. The Court re-emphasized that

“federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for error in state law.” Id. at 67, citing Lewis v. Jeffers,

497 U.S. 764 (1990), and Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41 (1984) (federal courts may not grant

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 14 of 16
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

15

habeas relief where the sole ground presented involves a perceived error of state law, unless said

error is so egregious as to amount to a violation of the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses

of the Fourteenth Amendment). 

To the extent Burnight is arguing the alleged delay violated constitutional law, in

order to establish a constitutional violation, Burnight must prove that any delay was both

unreasonable and prejudicial. See United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir.

2008); Meador v. Knowles, 990 F.2d 503, 506 (9th Cir. 1993); Camacho v. White, 918 F.2d 74,

79 (9th Cir. 1990); Hopper v. United States Parole Comm’n, 702 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 1983);

Biggs v. California, 2006 WL 2621057, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2006); William v. Board of

Prison Terms, 2006 WL 463128, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2006), adopted, 2006 WL 845594

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2006). Here there is no need to determine whether the alleged delay was

unreasonable, because Burnight has failed to allege any prejudice.

Moreover, even if Burnight had established a claim worthy of relief, and he has

not, his argument that the “only appropriate remedy” would be his “immediate release on parole”

is incorrect. Petition at 42. When habeas relief is warranted the district court has considerable

discretion in fashioning a remedy “tailored to the injury suffered from the constitutional

violation . . .” United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 364 (1981). The Supreme Court has

stated that “[f]ederal habeas corpus practice, as reflected by the decisions of this Court, indicates

that a court has broad discretion in conditioning a judgment granting habeas relief. Federal

courts are authorized, under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, to dispose of habeas corpus matters ‘as law and

justice require.’ ” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

Contrary to Burnight’s argument, when a suitability hearing has been delayed the

“only remedy” required by law and justice would not be immediate release. An order for an

immediate hearing would be a more appropriate remedy. Burnight however has already received 

the delayed hearing at issue.

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 15 of 16
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

16

For all these reasons, Burnight is not entitled to relief on this claim.

 VI. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus be denied.

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, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: April 5, 2010

Case 2:06-cv-02398-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 04/05/10 Page 16 of 16