Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01231/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01231-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MONTUE,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-CV-01231-AWI-SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT 

DISMISS THE PETITION FOR FAILURE 

TO STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. 23) 

Respondent Stu Sherman, warden of the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and 

State Prison, Corcoran, California ("CSATF"), moves to dismiss the petition for Petitioner's failure 

to state a cognizable claim. Petitioner John Montue, a state prisoner confined at CSATF, contends 

that the parole board denied his due process rights by failing to grant him parole. The undersigned 

recommends that the Court dismiss the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In 1979, Petitioner was convicted of charges including kidnap/robbery with enhancement 

(crimes committed on December 14, 1978); grand theft and conspiracy to commit grand theft 

(crimes committed on December 9, 1978); and resisting an officer (on December 1, 1978). 

Following a jury trial, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years to life. 

Petitioner is currently confined in CSATF.

Case 1:14-cv-01231-AWI-SMS Document 30 Filed 12/10/14 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

2

The most recent hearing on Petitioner's suitability for parole occurred on June 5, 2013. The 

board denied parole for a term of three years. The board relied on Petitioner's serious criminal 

history and his questionable credibility. It found Petitioner's version of the underlying incident 

implausible. The board also expressed concern that Petitioner lacked adequate understanding of the 

factors that led to his crime and of his anger. On the decision's face sheet, the board recommended 

that Petitioner stay discipline free and earn positive chronos, and that he get self-help and therapy, if 

available.

On August 1, 2014, the parole board, acting on its own motion, advanced Petitioner's next 

parole hearing to February 3, 2015. The board noted that Petitioner was receiving satisfactory work 

reports in his job as a porter. Since his 2013 parole hearing, he had begun participation in 

Alcoholics Anonymous, Restorative Justice, and Alternatives to Violence. The 2015 hearing was 

scheduled to provide Petitioner with an opportunity to demonstrate that with the passage of time, he 

had developed a better understanding of the causes and conditions of his crime.

On August 6, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he raised 

claims alleging that the denial of parole resulted in an excessive sentence violating petitioner's due 

process rights. On August 22, 2014, Petitioner amended the petition and moved for release on his 

own recognizance. The Court denied Petitioner's motion for release on December 4, 2014.

On November 24, 2014, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cognizable 

claim. On December 8, 2014, Petition filed opposition, claiming that his custody constituted cruel 

and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

II. Discussion

A. Due Process Claims (Petition)

"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). A federal court will "entertain an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus [o]n behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a 

Case 1:14-cv-01231-AWI-SMS Document 30 Filed 12/10/14 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

3

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 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 

United States District Court. In addition, to succeed in a petition pursuant to Section 2254, the 

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).

Petitioner contends that the parole board violated his due process rights by denying him 

parole in June 2013. Claiming that, under California law, the base term for his crimes was thirteen 

years, Petitioner contends that his life term was complete 22 years ago, in 1991, when he completed 

his first thirteen years of confinement. In a supporting brief, Petitioner, concedes that he does not 

challenge the legality of his conviction nor whether there was "'some evidence' or 'rational nexus' of 

his current dangerousness in California's procedural requirements." Doc. 10 at 22-23. His sole 

contention is that the California Board of Parole Hearings has violated his due process rights by 

keeping him "in custody for a period grossly disproportionate to his individual culpability for the 

commitment offense." Doc. 10 at 23.

"'To determine whether due process requirements apply in the first place, we look not to the 

weight but to the nature of the interest at stake.'" Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and 

Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979) (quoting Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 

408 U.S. 564, 570-71 (1972)) (internal quotation marks omitted). "There is no constitutional or 

inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid 

sentence." Id.

Even if there is no federal due process interest, however, a prisoner may have a liberty 

interest in parole under state law, as is the case under California law. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 

Case 1:14-cv-01231-AWI-SMS Document 30 Filed 12/10/14 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

4

216, 131 S.Ct. 859, 861 (2011). When a state law creates a liberty interest, the due process clause 

requires fair procedures in its application. Id. Under a parole statute such as California's, a prisoner 

receives due process if he is given (1) an opportunity to be heard, and (2) a statement of the reasons 

for denial of parole. Id. at 862. Petitioner does not dispute that the parole board satisfied these two 

conditions in his June 2013 parole hearing: in fact, a copy of the board's decision, including its 

reasons for denying Petitioner parole have been included in the record.

Any federal due process interest stops at the two procedural requirements set forth in 

Swarthout. Id. The substantive sufficiency (the "some evidence" analysis prescribed by California 

law for judicial review of parole board decisions) is a matter of state law that must be evaluated by 

state courts. Id. at 862-63. "'We cannot treat a mere error of state law, if one occurred, as a denial of 

due process; otherwise, every erroneous decision by a state court on state law would come here as a 

federal constitutional question.'" Little v.Crawford, 449 F.3d 1075, 1083 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Hughes v. Heinze, 268 F.2d 864, 869-70 (9th Cir. 1959)). Nor may a petitioner "transform a 

state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process." Little, 449 F.3d at 

1083 n. 6 (quoting Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

B. Cruel and Unusual Punishment (Opposition Brief)

For the first time in his opposition to Respondent's motion to dismiss, Petitioner asserts that 

the parole board's failure to grant him parole resulted in a sentence that is grossly disproportionate to 

the crime for which his sentence was imposed in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court 

will not consider an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief. See, e.g., Eberle v. City of 

Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (1990). 

III. Conclusion and recommendation

Because the June 2013 parole hearing satisfied the Swarthout procedural criteria, Petitioner 

has failed to allege a cognizable due process claim. Whether the parole board erred substantively in 

applying California law to the facts of Petitioner's case is a question for Petitioner to present to the 

Case 1:14-cv-01231-AWI-SMS Document 30 Filed 12/10/14 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

5

California courts, not in a federal petition for habeas corpus. Accordingly, the undersigned 

recommends that this case be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, 

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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, either party may file written 

objections with the Court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 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 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2014 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01231-AWI-SMS Document 30 Filed 12/10/14 Page 5 of 5