Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00014/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00014-4/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY S. JAMESON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, Director, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00014 AWI NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #15]

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 29, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DENIED. 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. 

On May 2, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00014-AWI -LJO Document 20 Filed 05/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

 Petitioner contends that California law requires a preponderance of the evidence to deny parole,

1

and this court is bound to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations. Only when a case

involves a federal administrative agency's construction of a statute that the agency administers, does the

court need to defer to the agency as set forth in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). See Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,

529 U.S. 120, 132 (2000). Here, Petitioner is not challenging a federal agency’s interpretation of a

federal statute. The BOP is a state agency, and not a federal agency. Finally, regardless of what evidence

is necessary under state law, a federal habeas corpus petition only may be granted for violations of the

Constitution. The Constitution requires only “some evidence.” 

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

supported by the record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and

Recommendations based on the points raised in the objections. As explained by the Magistrate

Judge, regardless of whether this petition was timely filed, the Board of Prison Terms (“BOP”)’s

denial of parole did not violate Petitioner’s constitutional rights. Contrary to Petitioner’ contention

that under California law a preponderance of the evidence is required to support the BOP’s parole

denial, only “some evidence” to support the parole board's decision is required under the

Constitution. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 9115 (9 Cir. 2003); Jancsek v. Oregon Bd. of th

Parole, 833 F.2d 1389, 1390 (9 Cir.1987). The “some evidence” standard is minimal and only th 1

requires “the record is not so devoid of evidence that the findings of [the BPT] were without support

or otherwise arbitrary.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985). As explained by the

Magistrate Judge, the BOP’s decision is supported by some evidence. In addition, Petitioner’s

contentions that the state courts misapplied California law do not rise to the level of a Constitutional

violation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Middleton v.

Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1084-85 (9th Cir.1985). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued March 29, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00014-AWI -LJO Document 20 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2