Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00196/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00196-0/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTHUR G. GARNER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JAMES YATES, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:08-CV-00196 OWW GSA HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

On February 7, 2008, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. By this

petition, Petitioner takes issue with two aspects of the Board of Prison Terms’ denial of parole. First,

Petitioner claims he was denied due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment

when the Board of Prison Terms (“BPT”) failed to inform him upon commencing his sentence that

disciplinary proceedings could be used against him to deny parole. Second, Petitioner claims he

received ineffective assistance of counsel at the parole hearing. 

Case 1:08-cv-00196-OWW -GSA Document 4 Filed 02/14/08 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

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

entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk

to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A petition for habeas corpus should not be

dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded

were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9 Cir. 1971). th

B. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Claim

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 of

Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless

he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall 

entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to a 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.

(emphasis added). See also, Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a

person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484

(1973).

Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must

demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court

resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application

of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the

United States; or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2). 

In the instant case, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal claim. In his first claim for

Case 1:08-cv-00196-OWW -GSA Document 4 Filed 02/14/08 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

relief, Petitioner alleges he was denied his constitutional rights when the BPT failed to advise him

before he commenced serving his sentence that a disciplinary proceeding could be used against him

to deny parole. There is no such requirement in state law that the BPT advise Petitioner of this

possibility. Moreover, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal claim for relief. Although

Petitioner alleges a violation of the Constitution, his broad assertion does not transform this claim

into a federal one. Merely placing a “due process” label on an alleged violation does not entitle

Petitioner to federal relief. Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1386, 1388-89 (1996). Broad, conclusory

allegations of unconstitutionality are insufficient to state a cognizable claim. Jones v. Gomez, 66

F.3d 199, 205 (9 Cir.1995); Greyson v. Kellam, 937 F.2d 1409, 1412 (9th Cir.1991) (bald th

assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel did not entitle the petitioner to an evidentiary hearing);

see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9 Cir.1999), citing Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. th

152, 162-63 (1996) (“general appeals to broad constitutional principles, such as due process, equal

protection, and the right to a fair trial, are insufficient to establish exhaustion). There is no

Constitutional guarantee which would require such an advisement. Therefore, the claim should be

dismissed.

In his second claim for relief, Petitioner alleges he was subjected to ineffective assistance of

counsel during his parole hearing. However, no right to counsel exists under the Constitution in the

context of parole board hearings. 

A parole release determination is not subject to all the due process protections of an

adversary proceeding. Pedro, 825 F.2d at 1398-99; see also Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 12 (explaining

that due process is flexible and calls for procedural protections that particular situations demand).

"[S]ince the setting of a minimum term is not part of a criminal prosecution, the full panoply of

rights due a defendant in such a proceeding is not constitutionally mandated, even when a protected

liberty interest exists." Pedro, 825 F.2d at 1399; Jancsek v. Oregon Bd. of Parole, 833 F.2d 1389,

1390 (9th Cir.1987). At a state parole board proceeding, the only process to which an inmate is

entitled is: 1) the inmate must receive advance written notice of a hearing, Pedro, 825 F.2d at 1399;

2) the inmate must be afforded an "opportunity to be heard," Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16; 3) if the

inmate is denied parole, the inmate must be told why "he falls short of qualifying for parole,” Id.; and

Case 1:08-cv-00196-OWW -GSA Document 4 Filed 02/14/08 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

4) the decision of the Board must be supported by "some evidence" having an indicia of reliability,

Superintendent, Mass. Correc. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985); Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703,

705 (9th Cir.1987).

A defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel in his first appeal as of right.

Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985). However, the State is not required to provide counsel in state

discretionary appeals. Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974). Further, “the protections of the Sixth

Amendment right to counsel do not extend to either state collateral proceedings or federal habeas

corpus proceedings.” Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 430 (9th Cir.1993). Likewise, the

Constitution does not require the assistance of counsel at a parole board hearing. Petitioner does not

dispute that he received the basic protections outlined in Greenholtz above. The Constitution does

not require more. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus be SUMMARILY DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.

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. 

Within thirty (30) days 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 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 14, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

Case 1:08-cv-00196-OWW -GSA Document 4 Filed 02/14/08 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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 5

60kij8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00196-OWW -GSA Document 4 Filed 02/14/08 Page 5 of 5