Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01194/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01194-5/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS GLEN WYRICK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, )

Acting Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-CV-01194 OWW LJO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS 

[Doc. #10]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented in this action by Linda Buchalter, Esq. This action has

been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On May 19, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. On July 10, 2006, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. On

July 25, 2006, the Court issued a Findings and Recommendation which recommended that

Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted. On August 3, 2006, Petitioner filed objections. On

August 21, 2006, the Findings and Recommendation was withdrawn pending the Ninth Circuit’s

resolution of Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 376 F.Supp.2d 975 (E.D. Cal. 2005).

Case 1:05-cv-01194-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 09/05/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a

petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The Ninth Circuit has allowed respondents to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer if

the motion attacks the pleadings for failing to exhaust state remedies or being in violation of the

state’s procedural rules. See, e.g., O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9 Cir. 1990) (using Rule

th

4 to evaluate motion to dismiss petition for failure to exhaust state remedies); White v. Lewis, 874

F.2d 599, 602-03 (9 Cir. 1989) (using Rule 4 as procedural grounds to review motion to dismiss for th

state procedural default); Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.Supp. 1189, 1194 & n.12 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (same). 

Thus, a respondent can file a motion to dismiss after the court orders a response, and the Court

should use Rule 4 standards to review the motion. See Hillery, 533 F. Supp. at 1194 & n. 12.

In this case, Respondent's motion to dismiss is based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Because Respondent's motion to dismiss is similar in procedural standing to a motion to dismiss for

failure to exhaust state remedies or for state procedural default and Respondent has not yet filed a

formal answer, the Court will review Respondent’s motion to dismiss pursuant to its authority under

Rule 4. 

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. 

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1008 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114

F.3d 1484, 1499 (9 Cir. 1997), quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5 Cir.1996), cert. th th

denied, 520 U.S. 1107 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997)

(holding AEDPA only applicable to cases filed after statute's enactment). The instant petition was

filed after the enactment of the AEDPA; thus, it is governed by its provisions.

Petitioner is in custody of the California Department of Corrections pursuant to a state court

judgment. Even though Petitioner is not challenging the underlying state court conviction, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 remains the exclusive vehicle for his habeas petition because he meets the threshold

requirement of being in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d

Case 1:05-cv-01194-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 09/05/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

1002, 1006 (9 Cir.2004); Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 376 F.Supp.2d 975, 978 (E.D.

th

Cal. 2005); see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus

“in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he

is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”).

Petitioner contends that his federal constitutional rights were violated when the BPT refused

to grant a parole date for the sixth time at his parole hearing on August 24, 2004. He alleges the

decision was arbitrarily made based on unchanging factors despite the fact he poses the lowest risk to

public safety. He contends that the language of the California parole statutes creates a presumptive

entitlement to, and thus has a liberty interest in, the setting of a parole release date. Respondent

moves for summary dismissal alleging Petitioner has no protected liberty interest in parole, thus

arguing that the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

On August 31, 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Sass v. California Board of

Prison Terms, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 2506393 (9 Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the th

district court’s denial of the habeas petition finding the state courts’ decisions upholding the

petitioner’s parole denials were not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of,

clearly established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. Id., at *1.

However, the Ninth Circuit determined that the district court had misread the California Supreme

Court case of In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1087 (2005). Sass, 2006 WL 2506393, at *3. The

Ninth Circuit held that there remained a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a parole date.

Id., at *4. Because California’s parole statutes give rise to a protected liberty interest, Respondent’s

motion to dismiss must be denied. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion to dismiss for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. 

Case 1:05-cv-01194-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 09/05/06 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

Within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after being served with a copy,

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 Recommendation.” Replies to

the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail)

after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01194-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 09/05/06 Page 4 of 4