Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04339/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04339-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

This matter was reassigned to this Court on November 2, 2015, after

Petitioner did not file a consent to magistrate jurisdiction. (See Docket No. 6.)

Order Dismissing Petition; Denying COA

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\04339Millan_parole-dism.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL MILLAN,

Petitioner,

 v.

RON DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-04339 EJD (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, has filed

a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the

denial of parole in 2012 by the Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”).1

 Petitioner has paid

the filing fee.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

in custody pursuant to the 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.” 28

Case 5:15-cv-04339-EJD Document 7 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Dismissing Petition; Denying COA

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\04339Millan_parole-dism.wpd 2

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief based on the claim that the denial of parole

was not based on some evidence because there was no explanation as to how Petitioner

posed a current risk of danger to public safety. (Pet. Attach. at 1.)

For the purposes of habeas federal habeas review, a California prisoner is entitled

to only “minimal” procedural protections in connection with a parole suitability

determination. Swarthout v. Cooke, No. 10-333, slip op. 4-5 (U.S. Jan. 24, 2011). The

procedural protections to which the prisoner is entitled under the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment are limited to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of

the reasons why parole was denied. Id. Petitioner makes no allegation in the petition to

indicate that he did not receive at least this amount of process. The Constitution does not

require more. Id. at 5. 

Whether the Board’s decision was supported by some reliable evidence of current

dangerousness is irrelevant in federal habeas. The Supreme Court has made clear that “it

is no federal concern... whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a

procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Id. at 6. In

light of the Supreme Court’s determination that due process does not require that there be

any amount of evidence to support the parole denial, Petitioner’s claim fails to state a

cognizable claim for relief. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED

for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. 

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of

Case 5:15-cv-04339-EJD Document 7 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Dismissing Petition; Denying COA

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\04339Millan_parole-dism.wpd 3

appealability (“COA”) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said

that “reasonable jurists” would find the district court’s assessment of the constitution

claims debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge 

Case 5:15-cv-04339-EJD Document 7 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 3