Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01489/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01489-6/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN DALE BELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01489 OWW SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT PETITION

[Doc. #24]

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #20]

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS AND DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On November 28, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DENIED with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge further recommended

that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days

of the date of service of the order. 

Case 1:06-cv-01489-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/11/08 Page 1 of 4
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 2

On December 28, 2007, Petitioner timely filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendation. On February 1, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to supplement his

objections with additional authority, requesting that the recent case of Hayward v. Marshall, ___

F.3d ___, 2008 WL 43716 (9 Cir.2008), be considered with his objections. The Court hereby th

GRANTS the motion and considers the case in its determination. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is

supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner was convicted of attempted murder that was

willful, deliberate and premeditated. The record supports the parole board’s determination that the 

offense was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious and cruel manner. 15 Cal. Code Regs.

§ 2402(c)(1). The record also supports the parole board’s reliance on statements of opposition from

the victim and the district attorney. Cal. Penal Code §§ 3041.7, 3043(e). In addition, there was some

evidence supporting the board’s finding that causative factors had not been explored sufficiently to

conclude Petitioner no longer posed an unreasonable risk of danger to the public. It is important to

note that in this crime, Petitioner attacked his wife for an inexplicable reason. This was not a crime

with “the type of unusual provocation . . . that seems not likely to recur.” Hayward, 2008 WL 43716

*6. The board’s reservations were reasonable. In light of these factors, there was some evidence to

support the board’s determination that Petitioner remained a considerable risk of danger, especially

to those in close relationship to Petitioner. Superintendent, Mass. Correc. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,

455 (1985).

Petitioner also argues that the board’s continued reliance on the static factors of his offense

has resulted in a due process violation. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 916 (9 Cir.2003). th

However, due process has not been violated here. As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner is

serving a term of life with the possibility of parole plus four years. Petitioner’s sentence of “life

without the possibility of parole” for attempted murder requires that Petitioner shall not be paroled

until a minimum of 15 calendar years have been served. See People v. Villegas, 92 Cal.App.4th

1217, 1228-1229 (2001). Since Petitioner has been deemed unsuitable for parole prior to the

Case 1:06-cv-01489-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/11/08 Page 2 of 4
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 3

expiration of his minimum term, the due process concerns stated in Biggs are not at issue. Irons v.

Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 853 (9 Cir.2007). In light of the above, the Magistrate Judge properly found th

the petition to be without merit.

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue

a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court

of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

“if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at 1034; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at

1040.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or

Case 1:06-cv-01489-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/11/08 Page 3 of 4
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 4

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a

certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for leave to supplement his objections is GRANTED;

2. The Findings and Recommendation issued November 28, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice; 

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment; and

5. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01489-OWW -SMS Document 25 Filed 02/11/08 Page 4 of 4