Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-06055/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-06055-1/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

TONY GOMEZ, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 09-6055 PJH (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

AND DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY 

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at the Correctional Training

Facility in Soledad, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The petition attacks denial of parole, so venue is proper in this district,

which is where petitioner is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

In 1985 a Kern County jury found petitioner guilty of second degree murder. He was

sentenced to prison for fifteen years to life. This court issued an order to show cause and

respondent filed an answer on January 10, 2011, and petitioner filed a traverse.

DISCUSSION

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) the Board of Parole

Hearings’ decision was not supported by “some evidence;” (2) his equal protection rights

were violated; (3) the Board has violated his rights by repeatedly denying parole based on

the facts of an offense that occurred twenty-three years before the hearing; and (4) he has

served longer than the time provided by the Board’s regulations.

As noted above, respondent filed an answer on January 10, 2011. However, on

January 24, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct.

Case 4:09-cv-06055-PJH Document 9 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Though, according to petitioner the governor reversed this agreement. 

2

859 (2011). The Supreme Court held that “[i]n the context of parole . . . the procedures

required [by the due process clause] are minimal . . . an opportunity to be heard and . . . a

statement of the reasons why parole was denied . . . ‘[t]he Constitution . . . does not require

more.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011). As long as the petitioner received

at least that much process, the federal court's habeas review is at an end. Id. at 862. That

is, there is no constitutional right to “individual consideration.” Thus, petitioner’s claims that

there was not “some evidence” or that the Board relied on his commitment offense are not

cognizable on federal habeas review.

 Petitioner next contends that the denial of parole violated his right to equal

protection because he is being treated differently than another inmate named Mikael

Schiold. According to petitioner, Schiold was a California prisoner and Swedish citizen who

obtained a "settlement agreement" with the State of California under which he was

"transferred to" Sweden where he was to be held in custody until January 1, 2007.1

Petitioner complains that he is being discriminated against because, unlike Schiold,

petitioner is not being transferred to another country and has not been given a date for his

release from custody. 

"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no

State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' which

is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of

Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985) (quoting Plyler v. Doe, 457

U.S. 202, 216 (1982)). The allegations in the petition establish that petitioner is not

"similarly situated" to Schiold, in that Schiold was granted parole by the Board and

petitioner was not. Moreover, Schiold is a foreign national and petitioner is not. There is

no indication or allegation that any foreign country has any interest in receiving petitioner

into its custody and then releasing him at any particular date, as was the case with Schiold. 

Petitioner’s equal protection rights thus were not violated when he was not treated the

Case 4:09-cv-06055-PJH Document 9 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

same as Schiold.

Finally, petitioner argues that the Board has failed to follow its own regulations as

petitioner has been incarcerated longer than the regulations provide. However, even

assuming the Board has failed to follow state regulations, this cannot be the basis for

federal habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (federal habeas

unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged error in the interpretation or application

of state law). Moreover, petitioner is serving an indeterminate term of fifteen years to life in

prison, so there is no guarantee of parole.

Petitioner has raised no arguments concerning the basic procedures he is entitled to

as described in Swarthout, and the court cannot review the evidence relied upon by the

Board. The petition is denied.

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, the petition is DENIED. Furthermore, because

reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable given the clear controlling

Supreme Court authority, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for COA). The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2013. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.09\Gomez6055.rul.wpd

Case 4:09-cv-06055-PJH Document 9 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 3