Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01910/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01910-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DURAN,

Petitioner,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01910-JDP (HC)

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner represented by counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. He argues that no evidence supports the state’s denial of his parole. After 

reviewing his initial petition, I find that it fails to state a cognizable claim. I will give him leave 

to amend before recommending the petition be dismissed, however. 

The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 

the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 

Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Petitioner argues that no evidence supports the state’s denial of his parole. ECF No. 1 at 

5-7. In so doing, he cites the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (en banc), for the proposition that “some evidence” must support the state’s denial of 

Case 2:23-cv-01910-DJC-JDP Document 3 Filed 12/01/23 Page 1 of 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

2

parole. ECF No. 1 at 7. That case was overruled by the Supreme Court in Swarthout v. Cook, 

562 U.S. 216 (2011). There, the Supreme Court held that, in the context of parole, the 

constitution requires only that the prisoner denied parole be afforded an opportunity to be heard 

and a statement of reasons as to why parole was denied. Id. at 220. Petitioner does not appear to 

argue that he did not receive the minimum procedure that he was due. 

I will give petitioner an opportunity to amend and explain why this action should still 

proceed.

It is ORDERED that within thirty days of this order’s entry, petitioner may file an 

amended habeas petition. If he does not, I will recommend this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01910-DJC-JDP Document 3 Filed 12/01/23 Page 2 of 2