Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01501/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01501-1/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)

---

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

2:05-CV-1501-RRB-PAN P

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:05-CV-1501-RRB-PAN P

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS’

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

I. Introduction

Before the Court are Respondents Tom Carey, et al.

(“Respondents”) with a Request for Reconsideration by the District

Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling (Docket No. 12). The request is

opposed at Docket No. 16.

The underlying issue is whether California’s parole

scheme creates a federally protected interest in parole release –

absent the finding of certain conditions. In addressing this

matter, the Court notes that the Ninth Circuit has previously

determined that it does. McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 902

(9th Cir. 2002).

BENJAMIN ADKINS,

Petitioner,

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Respondents.

Case 2:05-cv-01501-JAM-CHS Document 17 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 3
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

2:05-CV-1501-RRB-PAN P

II. Standard of Review

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate

judge’s orders shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.”

III. Discussion

Upon review of the entire file, and having listened to

oral argument in Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 376 F.

Supp. 2d 975 (E.D. Cal. 2005), which is currently on appeal in the

Ninth Circuit, the Court finds that the magistrate judge’s ruling

was not “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” E.D. Local Rule

72-303(f).

Moreover, the Court is particularly persuaded by

Blankenship v. Kane, 2006 WL 515627, *3 (N.D. Cal. 2006); wherein,

the district court determined:

Because the Ninth Circuit specifically held in

McQuillion that California’s parole scheme

creates a federally protected liberty

interest, and because [In re Dannenberg, 104

P.3d 783 (Cal. 2005)] did not address this

issue, the Court rejects Respondent’s argument

that there is no protected liberty interest in

parole for California inmates.

See also Thompson v. Carey, 2005 WL 3287503 (E.D. Cal

2005)(“[R]espondent’s motion to dismiss on grounds that petitioner

does not have a liberty interest in parole should be denied.”).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01501-JAM-CHS Document 17 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 3
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3

2:05-CV-1501-RRB-PAN P

IV. Conclusion

Consequently, upon reconsideration, the order of the

magistrate judge (Docket No. 11), filed on February 24, 2006, is

hereby AFFIRMED.

ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2006.

/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01501-JAM-CHS Document 17 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 3