Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02664/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02664-4/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

 Counsel was substituted in for the pro se petitioner on 1

July 27, 2005, but was relieved as counsel of record on August 2,

2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KHALIFAH E.D. SAIF’ULLAH, No. 2:02-cv-2664-MCE-DAD-P

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

TOM CAREY, ET AL., 

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 1

this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-02664-MCE -DAD Document 46 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 5
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

On June 28, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Respondent filed timely objections to the findings and

recommendations, and the pro se petitioner filed a timely reply

to the objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court rejects the magistrate judge’s

recommendation that Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas

corpus be granted on due process grounds, but finds the findings

and recommendations to otherwise be supported by the record and

by proper analysis. During the course of the Board of Prison

Terms’ July 12, 2000 parole consideration hearing, at which time

Petitioner was found not suitable for parole, the presiding

commissioner cited most prominently the fact that Petitioner’s

commitment offense was “carried out in a dispassionate and

calculated manner... which demonstrates an exceptionally callous

disregard for human suffering.” (See Findings and

Recommendations, p. 14) The commissioner went on to cite the

specifics of the underlying offense for which Petitioner was

convicted, kidnapping for ransom with use of a firearm. In

addition, the commissioner further cited, in denying parole,

Petitioner’s previous criminal record with its history of violent

Case 2:02-cv-02664-MCE -DAD Document 46 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 5
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

These violations stemmed from conduct ranging from 2

possession of inmate manufactured alcohol and trafficking of

narcotics to failure to report to job assignments and resisting

staff.

3

or assaultive behavior and Petitioner’s escalating pattern of

criminal conduct. (Id.) Finally, the commissioner cited

fourteen rule violation reports received by Petitioner over the

course of his twenty years in state prison, although specific 2

reference was made only to a rule violation report issued on

September 19, 1998 relating to grooming standards. The Board of

Prison Terms consequently based its decision that Petitioner

continued to pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society, or a

threat to public safety if released from prison, 1) on the nature

of Petitioner’s commitment offense; 2) on his pre-conviction

criminal record and unstable social history; and 3) on

Petitioner’s misconduct while incarcerated.

The magistrate judge found, in recommending that parole be

granted, that the Board’s decision to deny parole was “not

supported by any evidence bearing indicia of reliability.” 

(Findings and Recommendations, 25:8-9). Citing Biggs v.

Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 917 (9 Cir. 2003), the magistrate judge th

explained that the Board’s continued reliance on the unchanging

factors of Petitioner’s commitment offense and conduct prior to

his current imprisonment runs contrary to the rehabilitative

goals espoused by the prison system and consequently constitutes

a due process violation entitling Plaintiff to habeas relief. 

(Id. at 25:3-7).

Case 2:02-cv-02664-MCE -DAD Document 46 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 5
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

The Biggs court ultimately affirmed the denial of habeas 3

relief on grounds that the Board’s decision in that case was

indeed supported by “some evidence”. Id.

4

While the Biggs decision did note, in dicta, that denying a 3

prisoner parole based only upon the nature of his offense and his

prior conduct would raise “serious questions” involving the

prisoner’s liberty interest in parole, and “could result” in a

due process violation (Id. at 916-17), the Ninth Circuit recently

revisited this issue more definitively in Sass v. Cal. Bd. of

Prison Terms, 2006 WL 2506393, at *4 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2006). 

The Sass court noted that denial of parole is justified if “there

is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion

reached by the disciplinary board,” and explained that “the some

evidence standard is minimal.” Id., citing Superintendent v.

Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). Sass went on to observe that

the Board based its finding that Sass was unsuitable for parole

on the gravity of his convicted offenses in combination with his

prior offenses, and stated unequivocally that “[t]hese elements

amount to some evidence to support the Board’s determination(to

deny parole).” Id.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 2:02-cv-02664-MCE -DAD Document 46 Filed 09/29/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

In the wake of Sass, this Court cannot agree with the

magistrate judge’s determination discounting Petitioner’s

conviction offense, and his prior criminal and social history, as

evidence lacking any indicia of reliability. Instead, the

Board’s reliance on those factors here is no different than the

Board’s reliance on similar factors in Sass that were found to

uphold denial of parole.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed June 28, 2005,

are rejected with respect to the magistrate judge’s conclusion

that the Board’s denial of parole to Petitioner violated due

process. Said findings and recommendations, however, are

otherwise adopted in full, including the magistrate judge’s

recommendation that Petitioner’s other asserted grounds for

relief be denied;

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is

denied. 

DATED: September 29, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02664-MCE -DAD Document 46 Filed 09/29/06 Page 5 of 5