Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00235/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00235-4/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

MICHAEL DEVRIES, No. 2:05-cv-0235-MCE-GGH-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On October 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed Amended

Findings and Recommendations herein which were served on all

parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed

within twenty (20) days. 

Case 2:05-cv-00235-MCE -GGH Document 21 Filed 09/29/06 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

Both parties have filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations

rejecting Petitioner’s claim that he has a constitutional right

not to be handcuffed at a parole hearing to be supported by the

record and by proper analysis. The Court rejects, however, the

magistrate judge’s recommendation that Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss be granted on grounds that the California parole scheme

for indeterminate sentences, as set forth in California Penal

Code § 2041, does not give rise to a federally protected liberty

interest pursuant to the undersigned’s decision in Sass v. Cal.

Bd. of Prison Terms, 376 F. Supp. 2d 975 (E.D. Cal. 2005). The

Ninth Circuit, in Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 2006 WL

2506393, at *4 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2006), recently disagreed with

this Court’s Sass analysis, holding that California law does

afford a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a parole

date. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit’s Sass decision undercuts

the rationale for recommending that the instant Motion to Dismiss

be granted on that issue, and instead mandates that said Motion

be denied as to Respondent’s claim that there is no liberty

interest under California law in parole.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00235-MCE -GGH Document 21 Filed 09/29/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Amended Findings and Recommendations, filed October

13, 2005, are adopted in part and rejected in part consistent

with the foregoing; 

2. Respondent’s March 16, 2005 Motion to Dismiss is granted

with respect to Respondent’s claim that Petitioner has no

constitutional right not to be handcuffed at a parole hearing,

but denied as to Respondent’s claim that there is no federally

cognizable liberty interest in parole under California law; and

3. Respondent is directed to file a response to

Petitioner’s Application within thirty (30) days following the

date of this Order. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed

and served within thirty (30) days following service of an

answer. 

DATED: September 28, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00235-MCE -GGH Document 21 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3