Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01968/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01968-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMMY O’NEIL CHARITY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-1968 FCD GGH P

vs.

EDMUND BROWN, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s January 20, 2010,

motion to dismiss on grounds that claim four is successive and duplicative. See 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(1). For the following reasons, respondent’s motion should be denied. However, the

undersigned recommends that claim four be dismissed as legally frivolous.

This action is proceeding on the petition filed August 10, 2009. Petitioner

challenges the July 17, 2008, decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) finding

him unsuitable for parole. Petitioner raises the following claims: 1) the BPH improperly

excluded his 2008 psychological report in finding him unsuitable; 2) the BPH improperly found

that his offense demonstrated a callous disregard for human life; 3) the BPH improperly found

that he had a growing disciplinary problem; and 4) the BPH violated the terms of his plea

Case 2:09-cv-01968-JKS Document 30 Filed 03/23/10 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

2

agreement by not considering the 2008 psychological report. 

Respondent moves to dismiss claim four on grounds that this claim has been

previously adjudicated by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

and the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and is currently

pending in another action before the Southern District Court. Respondent argues that in a case

filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District, No. 9801904 IEG, petitioner

alleged that the BPH violated the terms of his plea agreement by incarcerating him beyond the

maximum term of his plea agreement. Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 1. In 1999, petitioner filed a

habeas corpus petition in the instant court, CIV S-99-1274 DFL DAD P, alleging that the BPH

violated his plea agreement by extending his incarceration beyond the maximum term. Motion to

Dismiss, Exhibit 2. In 2008, petitioner filed another petition in the Southern District, C-08-1530

JLS WMC, alleging that his continued incarceration violated his plea agreement. Motion to

Dismiss, Exhibit 4. This petition is fully briefed and awaiting a ruling. Motion to Dismiss,

Exhibit 5. 

Claim four of the instant petition alleges as follows:

Ground Four: The Board of Parole Hearings and the district attorney,

agents of state government, violated the implicit and explicit terms of the

agreed upon plea agreement by not considering the 2008 psychological

report creating a state created liberty interest–a due process and equal

protection clause violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.

On April 9, 1981, petitioner accepted a plea agreement in good faith to second

degree murder with the sentence of 15 years to life. Petitioner’s attorney, the

District Attorney (DA), and the Superior Court Judge, were all in agreement that

the plea was valid and acceptable, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner

killed a cab driver. U.S. v. Anderson, 970 F.2d 602 (9th Cir. 1992). By the BPH

deliberately refusing to consider the psychological report when making their

decision to either grant or deny parole suitability, violated the terms of the plea

agreement and established a state deprived liberty interest. Santobello v. New

York, 92 S.Ct. 495 (1971).

A due process violation is the fact that continuous reliance on unchanging

circumstances transforms the offense for which California law provides eligibility

for parole into a “de facto” life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. 

Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987); Garner v. Jones, 120 S.Ct. 1362

(2002); Morrisey v. Brewer, 92 S.Ct. 2593 (1972); Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d

Case 2:09-cv-01968-JKS Document 30 Filed 03/23/10 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

3

910 (9th Cir. 2003); McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2003) and In

re Scott, 119 Cal.App.4th 871; 15 Cal.Rptr 32 (2004); and McQuillion v. Duncan,

306 F3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Petition, pp. 7-8.

In his opposition to the pending motion, petitioner reiterates that the BPH’s failure

to consider the 2008 psychological report at his 2008 suitability hearing violated the terms of his

plea agreement. 

Petitioner’s claim four concerns action taken by the BPH in July 2008. Therefore,

petitioner could not have raised this claim in the first petition filed in the Southern District nor

the first petition filed in this court as both of these actions were filed several years before the

2008 suitability hearing. Petitioner’s second action filed in the Southern District alleges that the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation calculated his maximum release date as

October 15, 1995. Motion to Dismiss, Exhibit 4, p. 32 of 83. Petitioner alleges that his failure to

be released on October 15, 1995, violates his plea agreement. Id., p. 35 of 83.

Claim four of the instant petition is unrelated to the claims raised in petitioner’s

second petition filed in the Southern District. While both claim four and the second Southern

District petition allege violations of petitioner’s plea agreement, they are based on entirely

different sets of circumstances. Moreover, the second Southern District action has not been

reduced to judgment; therefore, the unrelated claim brought in this action is not successive or

abusive. For these reasons, the court does not find that petitioner’s claim four is duplicative of,

abusive or successive of the claims raised in the second Southern District petition.

In claim four, petitioner alleges that the BPH’s failure to consider his 2008

psychological report at the 2008 suitability hearing violated his plea agreement. Other than this

conclusory assertion, petitioner does not allege how the BPH’s failure to consider the report

violated his plea agreement. The undersigned can conceive of no valid legal theory to support

such a claim. Because this claim is legally frivolous, it should be dismissed. See Rule 4, Federal

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (if it plainly appears that petitioner is not entitled to relief,

Case 2:09-cv-01968-JKS Document 30 Filed 03/23/10 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

4

the judge must dismiss the petition).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (no. 24) be denied;

2. Claim four of the petition be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases; respondent be ordered to file an answer to the remaining claims within thirty

days of the adoption of these findings and recommendations.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: March 23, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ch1968.157

Case 2:09-cv-01968-JKS Document 30 Filed 03/23/10 Page 4 of 4