Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06107/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06107-1/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)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIFFORD MADDEN,

Petitioner,

v.

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS,

Respondent.

Case No. 18-cv-06107-VC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Gifford Madden filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 challenging a November 1, 2016 ruling of the Board of Parole Hearings on three grounds: 

(1) no evidence supports the Board’s decision that he is unsuitable for parole; (2) the denial of 

parole resulted in a statutorily disproportionate term; and (3) his continued confinement 

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. On January 31, 2019, the respondent filed a motion to 

dismiss. Madden’s opposition was due on February 28, 2019, but he has not filed it, nor has he 

communicated with the court since the motion to dismiss was filed. Based on its review of the 

petition and the motion, the court grants the motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

I. Claim that No Evidence Supported Board’s Decision

Madden claims no evidence supported the Board’s denial of parole based on its finding

that he was a risk to public safety. 

In Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011), the Supreme Court explained that, in 

the context of parole, a prisoner subject to a parole statute like California’s “received adequate 

process when he was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the 

reasons why parole was denied.” If the petitioner received at least that much process, the federal 

court’s habeas review is at an end. Id. Swarthout reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Cooke 

v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2010), and overruled several cases that had held the federal 

Case 3:18-cv-06107-VC Document 15 Filed 08/01/19 Page 1 of 2
2

habeas court could grant relief if there was not some evidence to support the denial of parole by 

the parole board or the Governor.

After Swarthout, a federal habeas court has no authority to determine whether a parole 

board’s decision was based on some evidence. Id. at 220-21. And from the transcript of 

Madden’s hearing before the parole board that he submitted with his petition, it is clear Madden 

received an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. 

Therefore, he received all the process that was due under the Constitution. 

II. Disproportionate Term and Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Madden’s claims that he is serving a disproportionate term which constitutes cruel and 

unusual punishment are based on an interpretation of California Penal Code sections and 

California cases about parole, prison terms and sentencing. However, a federal habeas court may

only consider claims based on a violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United 

States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62-67-68 (1991). Therefore, the 

claims based upon a disproportionate term and cruel and usual punishment are denied for lack of 

federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is no federal constitutional right to be released on parole 

before the expiration of a valid sentence.

Because the petition must be dismissed based on the foregoing, the court does not address 

the respondent’s argument that the petition is untimely.

CONCLUSION

The motion to dismiss is granted. Dismissal is without leave to amend as amendment 

would be futile. The Clerk shall enter a separate judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated:

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

August 1, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-06107-VC Document 15 Filed 08/01/19 Page 2 of 2