Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04145/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04145-5/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CARLIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT WONG, Acting Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-4145 SI 

ORDER TO RELEASE PETITIONER

On March 17, 2008, this Court granted James Carlin’s (“Carlin”) petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. The Court directed the parties to submit briefing on the appropriate remedy. Having reviewed

the parties’ papers, the Court hereby ORDERS respondent to release petitioner from custody within

fourteen days of the date of this order. 

BACKGROUND

On October 10, 1980, a jury convicted Carlin of second degree murder and he was sentenced to

seventeen years to life in prison. On December 15, 2003, at Carlin’s eleventh parole hearing, the Board

of Parole Hearings (“the Board”) found that Carlin posed an unreasonable risk of danger to society or

threat to public safety and denied him parole. After exhausting state remedies, Carlin filed his federal

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the Board’s denial violated his right to due process.

On March 17, 2008, after carefully reviewing the entire record that was before the Board, the Court

found that the Board violated Carlin’s due process rights by relying on unchanging factors that do not

constitute evidence of Carlin’s present threat to society if released, and by relying on factors without

any evidentiary support in the record. The Court granted Carlin’s petition, and directed the parties to

brief the issue of the appropriate remedy. 

Case 3:06-cv-04145-SI Document 35 Filed 08/04/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 Respondent requests that the Court disregard the portions of petitioner’s brief addressing

events that occurred after the Board’s December 15, 2003 denial of parole. However, respondent does

not dispute any of the evidence attached to the Littlefield Declaration, and respondent acknowledges

that the Board granted petitioner parole at the March 2008 hearing. The Court finds that the March 2008

grant of parole is relevant to fashioning a remedy, and accordingly the Court will consider the Littlefield

Declaration and supporting exhibits. 

2

On March 25, 2008, at Carlin’s fifteenth parole hearing, the Board granted Carlin parole. The

record on which the Board relied shows that Carlin has not had any rules violation reports or other

disciplinary action since his 2003 board hearing. Littlefield Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A at 14, 17, 19, 27. Carlin’s

post-2003 psychiatric evaluations and correctional counselor’s reports were consistent with prior reports

finding that Carlin posed a low risk of danger to society. Id. ¶¶ 6-7, Ex. A at 9-10, 28. Since 2003,

Carlin has continued to participate in self help including Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous,

academic classes, and assisting other prisoners. Id. ¶ 6, Ex A. at 9, 25-26, 30. Carlin’s future plans for

residence and employment have remained essentially the same since 2003, with two additional offers

of employment from his current and former attorneys, and an additional option for residence with his

current attorney. Id. ¶ 4, Ex. A. at 31-35. The judge who presided over Carlin’s criminal case, nowretired Justice Hanlon, also submitted a letter “wholeheartedly endors[ing]” Carlin’s parole. Id. ¶ 5, Ex.

B.

On March 27, 2008, the Board calculated a parole date of February 9, 1993 by applying earned

post-conviction credits and pre-sentence credits. Id. ¶ 8, Ex. C. Upon release, Carlin’s parole period

is five years. Id., Ex. D. The Board’s grant of parole is subject to review by the Parole Review Board

and the Governor of the State of California before it becomes final. This review period lasts 150 days.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner contends that the Court should order his immediate release from prison, and that the

Court should grant equitable relief by crediting to his parole period the time he has been

unconstitutionally incarcerated, e.g, all time since December 15, 2003. Respondent argues that the

Court does not have the authority to order petitioner released. Respondent argues that the Court should

not consider the fact that the Board granted Carlin parole in March 2008, and instead should vacate the

Board’s 2003 denial and order a new hearing. 1

 Alternatively, respondent argues that if the Court does

Case 3:06-cv-04145-SI Document 35 Filed 08/04/08 Page 2 of 4
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

consider the Board’s 2008 grant of parole, it should view the 2008 parole hearing as the appropriate

remedy and allow the review process to run its course. Respondent argues that the Court should not

order petitioner’s immediate release because to do so would improperly interfere with the pending

administrative review process and deprive the Governor of his constitutional right to review parole

decisions for murderers. 

The Court has the authority to release a state prisoner after granting a writ of habeas corpus.

“The federal court’s authority to release a state prisoner on recognizance or surety in the course of a

habeas corpus proceeding derives from the power to issue the writ itself.” Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d

499, 507 (9th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court’s grant of bail to a state prisoner who had been

awarded conditional habeas corpus relief); see In re Roe, 257 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2001). The

Court finds that on this record, it is in the interest of justice that petitioner be immediately released. 

More fundamentally, remanding the matter for a new hearing would be futile and unnecessary

given the Board’s recent grant of parole. After examining the complete record that was before the Board

in 2003 and of the transcripts from the 2003 parole hearing, the Court determined there was no evidence

to support a denial of parole. The Board’s subsequent grant of parole in 2008, as well as the record that

was before the Board in 2008, show that there has been no new evidence since December 15, 2003 that

Carlin would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released. Accordingly, there remains no

evidence to support a denial of parole and remand to the Board for a new determination would be futile,

as would any review proceedings. See McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2003)

(noting that an order of immediate release does not meaningfully deprive the Governor of his power to

review where no evidence in the record supported the Board’s determination that the petitioner was not

suitable for parole); Martin v. Marshall, 448 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1145 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (ordering release

of petitioner when remand to Board to either release petitioner or grant him a new parole review would

have been futile and unfair because denial of parole was made on the basis of the same record which

district court had found to be insufficient); Rosenkrantz v. Marshall, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1063, 1087 (C.D.

Cal. 2006) (ordering release of prisoner when Board’s reversal of parole grant was not supported by

“some evidence,” dates for parole had previously been set and long since passed, and petitioner had not

committed any violent acts since his last parole hearing); Thomas v. Brown, 513 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1136-

Case 3:06-cv-04145-SI Document 35 Filed 08/04/08 Page 3 of 4
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

2

 Although the parole date set by the Board is February 9, 1993, petitioner cannot be credited

for time served from this date because he had not been found suitable for parole at that time. See In re

Bush, 161 Cal. App. 4th 133, 143 (2008).

3

 Respondent’s motion to stay this matter pending issuance of the mandate in Hayward v.

Marshall, 527 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2008) is denied. 

4

37 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (ordering immediate release of prisoner when Governor’s decision to reverse parole

grant was not supported by “some evidence,” the Board had already set a term for release, and the

release date had passed). 

Finally, the Court finds that the actual surplus time that petitioner has been incarcerated beyond

his parole date should be credited toward his post-release parole period.2

 See McQuillion, 342 F.3d at

1015 (releasing petitioner without an accompanying three-year period of parole because had petitioner

been released on time, the parole period would have already expired); Martin, 448 F. Supp. 2d at 1145;

see also In re Bush, 161 Cal. App. 4th 133, 143 n.4 (2008). Here, petitioner is entitled to credit against

his parole period for his time in confinement that was in violation of his due process rights. Had

respondent not violated petitioner’s due process rights by denying parole on December 15, 2003,

petitioner would have been released when the parole suitability determination became final after the 150

day review period. See id. at 144-45. Petitioner’s parole decision would have become final on May 14,

2004. Accordingly, the Court finds that the time petitioner has been incarcerated beyond May 14, 2004

should be credited toward his post-release parole period. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders respondent to release James Carlin from custody

within fourteen days of the date of this order.3

 Within twenty days of the date of this order, respondent

must file a notice with the court confirming the date on which Carlin was released. The Court further

orders that the time Carlin has been incarcerated beyond May 14, 2004 be credited toward his postrelease parole period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04145-SI Document 35 Filed 08/04/08 Page 4 of 4