Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02516/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02516-3/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 1

 On July 26, 2011, Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, was substituted as Respondent in place of “L.S. McEwen.” (ECF No. 17.)

- 1 - 10cv2516

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD GREEN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 10-CV-2516 JLS (JMA)

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

(2) GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS; AND

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(ECF Nos. 9, 16)

vs.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF

PAROLE HEARINGS; MATTHEW CATE,

Respondents.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Donald Green’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

(ECF No. 1.) Also before the Court are Respondent Matthew Cate’s1

 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9)

and Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler’s report and recommendation advising the Court to grant

Respondent’s motion and dismiss the petition without prejudice to Petitioner bringing his claim under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (R&R, ECF No. 16).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) set forth a district court’s

duties in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The district court must

“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made,” and “may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

Case 3:10-cv-02516-JLS-JMA Document 18 Filed 08/29/11 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

- 2 - 10cv2516

judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673–76 (1980);

United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). However, in the absence of timely

objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in

order to accept the report and recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (citing

Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).

Here, Petitioner failed to timely object to Magistrate Judge Adler’s report and

recommendation. (See R&R 6 (ordering parties to file objections “not later than August 16, 2011”).)

Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the Court finds that it is thorough, well reasoned,

and contains no clear error. Accordingly, the Court (1) ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Adler’s report and

recommendation, (2) GRANTS Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and (3) DISMISSES the petition

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner bringing his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Court is obliged to determine whether a certificate of appealability should issue in this

matter. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is authorized “if the applicant has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A

petitioner satisfies this standard by showing that “reasonable jurists” would debate the Court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Where, as

here, the petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue when

the petitioner shows, at least, [1] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and [2] that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.

Here, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists would neither debate that the petition fails

to state a valid constitutional claim nor debate the propriety of the Court’s procedural ruling. Because

Petitioner does not challenge the duration of his confinement, he fails to establish subject matter

jurisdiction for federal habeas relief. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003)

(“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison

condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence.”). Moreover, Petitioner fails to allege

Case 3:10-cv-02516-JLS-JMA Document 18 Filed 08/29/11 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 - 10cv2516

facts to establish that he was deprived of his liberty interest in parole, see Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d

1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. —, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011)), and

his contention that the state misapplied its own regulatory law is not a cognizable ground for federal

habeas relief, see Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). Accordingly, the Court DENIES

a certificate of appealability.

This Order concludes the litigation in this matter. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 29, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02516-JLS-JMA Document 18 Filed 08/29/11 Page 3 of 3