Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01938/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01938-2/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

27

28

05cv1938

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MENDOZA,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05-CV-1938-L(NLS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

MODIFICATION OF ORDER

GRANTING THE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [doc.

#26]; and AMENDING THE

JUDGMENT 

Petitioner Robert Mendoza filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 that the Court granted on April 29, 2008. Judgment was entered in petitioner’s favor. 

[doc. #26]. 

Petitioner seeks to have the Court modify its Order so that petitioner can secure his

immediate release from custody in accordance with the relief sought in the petition. Respondent

does not object to the motion insofar as it seeks to clarify the Court’s Order granting the petition

but contends petitioner is not entitled to the relief he sought, i.e., release from custody or a

reduction in petitioner’s parole term. (Opp. at 1.) Respondent argues that the Court should

remand the matter to the Governor to “proceed in accordance with due process.” Id. at 2.

Respondent contends “this Court is not required to grant the relief requested by

Petitioner,” Id., but offers no compelling reason for the Court to not grant immediate release to

petitioner. In granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the relief granted is that asked for in

Case 3:05-cv-01938-L-NLS Document 29 Filed 05/07/08 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

27

28

1 The Court granted the habeas petition finding the state court’s decision holding

that the Governor’s decision to overrule the Board was supported by some evidence constituted

an unreasonable application of the “some evidence” principle articulated in Superintendent v.

Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985). 

2 Although a court may grant habeas relief only if the California Court of Appeal

acted contrary to or unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent, or made

an unreasonable determination of facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S.

63, 70-73 (2003), this Court also reviewed the materials that were before the Board and found no

evidence to support a decision other than the one reached by the Board, i.e., petitioner poses no

danger to society. 

2 05cv1938

the petition. For example, in McQuillion v. Duncan, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the

context of a parole rescission decision, directed the district court to “grant the writ” on remand. 

McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court ordered

McQuillion’s release. In a second review of the case, the Ninth Circuit stated: “The district

court properly interpreted this instruction to mean that it should grant the relief sought by

McQuillion and order his immediate release.” Id. Here, the Court granted Mendoza’s petition

fully intending to provide for his immediate release from custody and to grant him credit for

time served beyond the date of the Board’s decision.1

Respondent contends, however, that the Court should remand to the Governor to proceed

in accordance with due process. (Opp. at 2). But respondent’s argument is without merit. The

present case is not one where petitioner failed to receive a timely parole hearing or meaningful

parole consideration. Petitioner received a timely and meaningful parole hearing. The Board

thoroughly reviewed the myriad factors provided for by statute to determine petitioner was

suitable for parole, i.e., he would not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to

public safety if released from prison. 

“The Governor's constitutional authority is limited to a review of the materials provided

by the Board.” McQuillion, 342 F.3d at 1015. There is nothing in the record that could be used

by the Governor to override the Board’s record and decision2

 and “[a] remand to the Governor in

this case would amount to an idle act.” Id. Under the particular facts of this case, there is no

justifiable reason to keep petitioner in custody for even a brief additional period of time.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED petitioner’s motion for modification of the

Case 3:05-cv-01938-L-NLS Document 29 Filed 05/07/08 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

27

28

3 05cv1938

Court’s Order granting petition for habeas corpus is GRANTED. The Court’s April 29, 2008

Order is modified as follows:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the petition for habeas corpus; vacating

Governor Schwarzenegger’s action dated November 9, 2004; reinstating the

BPH’s June 23, 2004 decision granting petitioner’s parole; directing that petitioner

be paroled immediately; and directing that petitioner’s parole term be reduced by

the time that his incarceration has exceeded the Board’s June 23, 2004 decision

and by including term credits to which he is entitled by law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court amend the judgment to reflect

the modification set forth above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 7, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01938-L-NLS Document 29 Filed 05/07/08 Page 3 of 3