Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00657/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00657-2/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

JAMES LORIN PORTER, SR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0657 FCD GGH P

vs.

R. J. SUBIA, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is proceeding on the original petition filed

April 5, 2007. Pending before the court is respondent’s July 13, 2007, motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

For the following reasons, the court recommends that respondent’s motion be granted in part and

denied in part.

Petitioner challenges a decision by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) finding

him suitable for parole. Respondent argues that the petition should be dismissed because his

claim that the BPH violated its own rules does not present a federal question and because he does

not indicate what parole suitability hearing he is challenging.

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00657-RSL-JLW Document 12 Filed 10/30/07 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

2

Respondent is correct that petitioner does not identity the specific date of the

suitability hearing he is challenging. However, the petition identifies the dates of the orders by

the Sacramento County Superior Court, California Court of Appeal and California Supreme

Court denying his petitions raising the claims raised in the instant action. On July 24, 2007, in

support of his opposition, petitioner filed copies of these orders. A review of these documents

indicates that petitioner is challenging the August 23, 2005, decision by the BPH finding him

unsuitable. Petitioner also filed a copy of the transcript from the at-issue hearing. Because it is

clear what parole suitability hearing petitioner is challenging, the motion to dismiss on this

ground should be denied.

The court now turns to respondent’s argument that petitioner’s claim alleging that

the BPH violated their own regulations should be dismissed. The petition raises four claims. 

Claim one alleges that the BPH violated their own regulations by 1) not providing a complete

record from the hearing; 2) referring to petitioner as an “AB” dropout; 3) using petitioner’s

psychiatric record from a previous hearing; and 4) finding that petitioner had used a weapon. 

The gravamen of the remaining three claims is that the decision by the BPH finding petitioner

unsuitable was not supported by sufficient evidence in violation of petitioner’s right to due

process.

A writ of habeas corpus is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) only on the basis

of some transgression of federal law binding on the state courts. Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d

1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1197 (9th Cir. 1983). It is

unavailable for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law. Middleton v. Cupp,

768 F.2d at 1085; see also Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 814 (9th Cir. 1987); Givens v.

Housewright, 786 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1986). Habeas corpus cannot be utilized to try state

issues de novo. Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 377, 92 S. Ct. 2174, 2178 (1972).

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00657-RSL-JLW Document 12 Filed 10/30/07 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

3

The Supreme Court has reiterated the standards of review for a federal habeas

court. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 112 S. Ct. 475 (1991). In Estelle v. McGuire, the

Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had

granted federal habeas relief. The Court held that the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the

evidence was incorrectly admitted under state law since, “it is not the province of a federal

habeas court to reexamine state court determinations on state law questions.” Id. at 67-68, 112 S.

Ct. at 480. The Court re-emphasized that “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for error in

state law.” Id. at 67, 112 S. Ct. at 480, citing Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 110 S. Ct. 3092,

3102 (1990), and Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 41, 104 S. Ct. 871, 874-75 (1984) (federal courts

may not grant habeas relief where the sole ground presented involves a perceived error of state

law, unless said error is so egregious as to amount to a violation of the Due Process or Equal

Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). 

Based on the law set forth immediately above, claim one must be dismissed

because it alleges a violation of state law only. The remaining claims, whether meritorious or

not, are allegations that due process was violated. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss claim one

should be granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s July 13, 2007,

motion to dismiss claim one of the petition be granted; respondent’s motion be denied in all other

respects; respondent be ordered to file an answer to the remaining claims within thirty days of the

adoption of these findings and recommendations. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

Case 2:07-cv-00657-RSL-JLW Document 12 Filed 10/30/07 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

4

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 10/30/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

por657.157

Case 2:07-cv-00657-RSL-JLW Document 12 Filed 10/30/07 Page 4 of 4