Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02622/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02622-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL D. SAUNDERS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2622 DFL KJM P

vs.

ROBERT A. HOREL, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. He has paid the filing fee and has filed an amended petition.

Petitioner is serving a term of fifteen years to life for second degree murder. He

challenges the denial of parole, though it is not clear from the petition which particular denial he

challenges. A second amended petition must identify the challenged denial of parole. 

The bases of his challenges are similarly not clear. For example, petitioner

provides a lengthy, and unnecessary, history of the Determinate Sentencing Law. He also

appears to be arguing that he was entitled to have a term set proportionate to his crime, which the

Legislature determined was the appropriate manner in which to convert indeterminate sentences

imposed before 1977 to determinate sentences. This argument is specious: petitioner committed

his crime in 1990, long after the adoption of California’s Determinate Sentencing Law.

Case 2:06-cv-02622-JKS-KJM Document 10 Filed 05/24/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Petitioner also argues that he is entitled to the setting of a fixed term under

California Penal Code § 3041(a). However, in Dannenberg, the California Supreme Court noted:

Our conclusion that California’s parole statutes allow the Board to

find unsuitability without engaging in a comparative analysis of

other offenses or applying “uniform term” principles, and that the

Board adhered to state law in Dannenberg’s case, also disposes of

his contention that he was denied federal due process rights arising

from his protected liberty interest, and expectation, in a “uniform”

parole release date.

In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1098 n.18 (2005). In that case, the state supreme court

resolved the “tension between the commands in subdivisions (a) and (b)” of Penal Code section

3041, and the question whether “the public-safety provision of subdivision (b) takes precedence

over the ‘uniform terms’ principle of subdivision (a).” Id. at 1081-82. Its ultimate holding is

this:

We therefore hold that the Board proceeded lawfully when,

without comparing Dannenberg’s crime to other second degree

murders, to its base term matrices, or to the minimum statutory

prison term for that offense, the Board found him unsuitable to

receive a fixed and “uniform” release date by pointing to some

evidence that the particular circumstances of his crime . . .

indicated exceptional callousness and cruelty with trivial

provocation, and thus suggested he remains a danger to public

safety.

Id. What Dannenberg did, then, was to find that the provisions of section 3041(a), which appear

to require the Parole Board to set a minimum, uniform term, did not create a liberty interest in

parole, because the Parole Board was required to undertake the public safety inquiry of

subdivision (b) before setting a uniform term. This court is bound by the state court’s

determination that § 3041(a) does not establish a liberty interest in parole. Gurley v. Rhoden,

421 U.S. 200, 208 (1975) (“a State’s highest court is the final judicial arbiter of the meaning of

state statutes”). Accordingly, a second amended petition should not include any claim of a

liberty interest flowing from § 3041(a).

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02622-JKS-KJM Document 10 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The amended petition filed March 22, 2007 is dismissed and leave is given for

petitioner to file a second amended petition within thirty days of the date of this order. The

second amended petition should bear this case number and comply with this order. The second

amended petition should not include more than fifteen pages of attachments.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the form for a habeas

corpus petition. 

DATED: May 24, 2007. 

2

sand2622.amd

Case 2:06-cv-02622-JKS-KJM Document 10 Filed 05/24/07 Page 3 of 3