Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01798/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01798-1/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)

---

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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

James Darrell Matthews,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-1798 GEB PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

California Board of

Prison Terms, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoPetitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel,

applied for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals 

petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Leave to

proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

A judge “entertaining an application for a writ of habeas

corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing 

the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, 

Case 2:05-cv-01798-GEB-PAN Document 12 Filed 05/17/06 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

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or

person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

Petitioner alleges respondent violated his right to due

process under Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, Civ. S 94-0671 LKK GGH

by failing to hold a parole revocation hearing within 35 days. 

He seeks an order directing that the petition to revoke probation

be dismissed and that he immediately be released from custody. 

January 11, 2005, parole hold, petitioner was returned to custody

on a parole hold made the same date. February 16, 2005, he had a

final revocation hearing, at which he was represented by counsel. 

Petitioner was found to have violated the conditions of his

parole and was returned to custody for one year.

Pursuant to the March 9, 2004, Stipulated Order for

Permanent Injunctive Relief made in Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger,

Civ. S 94-0671 LKK GGH, California parole officials have 35 days

from the placement of a parole hold to have a final revocation

hearing for parolees who do not waive or seek a continuance of a

final revocation hearing. This court retained jurisdiction to

enforce the order through specific performance and all other

remedies permitted by law or equity. 

A petitioner may obtain habeas corpus relief, viz., release

and dismissal of the parole violation allegations, only if he can

show the delay was unreasonable and prejudiced him. Hooper v.

U.S. v. Parole Com’n, 702 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 1983). There

is no imminent threat of irreparable injury to petitioner that

would justify any kind of injunctive relief since there

Case 2:05-cv-01798-GEB-PAN Document 12 Filed 05/17/06 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

apparently was a timely probable cause hearing, the procedures

and deadlines were new and the revocation hearing was only one

day late. Since officials decided to revoke parole, petitioner

suffered no discernible injury. 

For these reasons, it appears from the application that

petitioner is not entitled to the relief he seeks and so this

action should be dismissed.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: May 16, 2006.

\matt1798. f&r dsms hab

Case 2:05-cv-01798-GEB-PAN Document 12 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 3