Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02288/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02288-6/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLIFFORD BRODSKY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANTHONY P. KANE,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-02288 CRB

ORDER RE: MOTION 

FOR RECONSIDERATION

The California Superior Court held that the BPT’s denial of parole was not a violation

of Petitioner’s due process rights because the facts underlying the crime were “more than the

minimum necessary to sustain a conviction for conspiracy to commit second-degree murder.” 

Pet. Appx., Ex. H, at 2 (citing In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal. 4th 616, 683 (2002)). For the

reasons set forth in the Court’s previous order, the Court finds that this holding by the state

court was not “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d). The Court reaches this conclusion notwithstanding any dicta in the state court’s

opinion about whether the facts of the underlying crime “fit squarely” under the rubric of the

various state regulations governing parole proceedings. In a federal habeas proceeding, the

critical constitutional standard is whether the BPT’s decision is supported by “some

evidence.” Because the BPT’s decision was so supported in this case, the California 

Case 3:06-cv-02288-CRB Document 31 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Superior Court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, the federal

Due Process Clause. The Court has considered, and rejects, Petitioner’s argument that it was

improper for the BPT and the California court to consider the fact that his crime was

premeditated. See Brodsky v. Kane, No. C-06-2288-CRB, at 14-15 & n.1 (N.D. Cal. July 24,

2007). For these reasons, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02288-CRB Document 31 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 2