Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02334/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02334-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIE C. RUCKER, 

 Petitioner, 

 vs. 

S. HATTON, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. C 16-2334 JSW (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

INTRODUCTION

 Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas 

corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. For the reasons 

discussed below, the petition is DISMISSED. 

BACKGROUND

 In 1976, Petitioner was convicted in San Bernardino County Superior Court of firstdegree murder. He was sentenced to a term of life in state prison in state prison. He has 

been denied parole on numerous occasions. In 2014, the California Board of Parole 

Hearings (“Board”) issued a form indicating that Petitioner’s “Base Term” and “Adjusted 

Base Term Calculation” is 15 years. (Pet. Exh. A.) On February 17, 2016, the California 

Supreme Court thereafter denied a habeas petition. (Pet. Exh. G.) Thereafter, Petitioner 

filed the instant federal petition. 

Case 4:16-cv-02334-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

DISCUSSION 

I Standard of Review 

 This court may entertain a petition for a 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.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause 

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant 

or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

II. Discussion 

Petitioner claims that the Board is violating his Eighth Amendment right to be free 

from cruel and unusual punishment because he is still in custody beyond the expiration of 

his “base term” of 15 years. The premise of Petitioner’s claim is that the Board’s 

indicating that his “base term” is 15 years means that 15 years is also his maximum term 

under state law. That is not the case. Petitioner indicates that he was sentenced to a term 

of life in state prison. (Pet. at 1.) Under California Penal Code § 187, the maximum term 

for a murder conviction is life in prison. As a result, he is not, as he contends, being 

imprisoned beyond his maximum sentence so as to violate the Eighth Amendment. Nor 

does a life sentence for murder violate the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment 

does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence. Rather, it forbids only 

extreme sentences that are “grossly disproportionate to the crime.” Ewing v. California, 

538 U.S. 11, 23 (2003). A life sentence for the crime of murder is not disproportionate to 

the crime committed. Cf. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (sentence of 25 years to 

life for grand theft did not violate Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and 

unusual punishment); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (life sentence for 

cocaine possession does not violate Eighth Amendment because not “grossly 

disproportionate” to crime); Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (rejecting an Eighth 

Amendment challenge to a prison term of 40 years and a fine of $20,000 for possession 

and distribution of approximately nine ounces of marijuana). The petition does not state a 

Case 4:16-cv-02334-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

val

to 

in 

a r

Mc

wa

Da

lid claim th

In light

Rule 1

rule on whe

which the p

easonable j

cDaniel, 52

arranted in t

The cle

IT IS S

ated: June 1

hat his confi

t of the fore

1(a) of the R

ether a petit

petition is d

urist would

29 U.S. 473,

this case. 

erk shall en

SO ORDER

, 2016 

inement vio

egoing, the 

Rules Gove

tioner is ent

dismissed. P

d find the de

, 484 (2000

nter judgmen

RED. 

3

olates the Ei

CONCLU

petition for

erning Secti

titled to a c

Petitioner h

enial of his 

0). Consequ

nt and close

ighth Amen

USION 

r a writ of h

ion 2254 C

certificate of

has failed to

claim deba

uently, no c

e the file. 

JE

Un

ndment. 

habeas corp

Cases now re

f appealabi

o make a sub

atable or wr

certificate o

EFFREY S. 

nited States

pus is DISM

equires a di

lity in the s

bstantial sh

rong. Slack

of appealabi

WHITE 

s District Ju

MISSED. 

istrict court 

same order 

howing that 

k v. 

ility is 

udge 

Case 4:16-cv-02334-JSW Document 5 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 3