Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02477/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02477-2/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

 Petitioner claims to challenge his thirteenth parole hearing, but the chronological history from

the California Department of Corrections (Document 10-2, at 12-15) shows that the December 22,

2004 hearing was Bowling’s twelfth, not thirteenth, hearing. 

- 1 - 06 cv 2477 H

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS P. BOWLING,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06 cv 2477 H

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

vs.

ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ,

Respondent.

Dennis P. Bowling filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on

November 9, 2006 under 28 U.S.C. §2254. He alleges that the denial of parole at his

twelfth1

 hearing deprived Petitioner of due process and equal protection of the law.

(Petition, at 6.) Respondent filed a motion to dismiss alleging the Petition was untimely

under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C.

§2244(d), and did not allege a federal question. (Document 10-2, at 3-4.) Petitioner filed

a response on March 13, 2007. (Document 14-2, at 6.)

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation to deny the motion.

(Civ. No. 06 CV 2477.) The deadline for objections was June 11, 2007, and as of the

date of this order Respondent has not filed any objections. This Court adopts the Report

and Recommendation and denies Respondent’s motion to dismiss Petitioner’s claim.

/ / / /

Case 3:06-cv-02477-JLS-NLS Document 16 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 6
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

 See Case No. 03 cv 332 IEG (NLS). Bowling alleged his sentence violated the Ex Post Facto

Clause and his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 3 The date filed is the date on which Petitioner signed the Petition, and delivered

 it to prison officers, under Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 2002). 

- 2 - 06 cv 2477 H

Procedural History

A San Diego County jury found Petitioner guilty of first degree murder in 1977.

(Doc. 10-2, at 7.) He received a life prison sentence. (Id., 10.) Petitioner appealed his

conviction and simultaneously filed a habeas petition challenging his sentence. This

Court denied that petition on May 26, 2004.2

 Petitioner now challenges his 2004 denial

of parole in a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on November 9, 2006.3

 (Pet’r’s

Mem. of P.&A., at 16.)

Petitioner’s first denial of parole came on December 14, 1982, his second on

February 2, 1984, and his twelfth on December 22, 2004. (Document 10-2, at 12-15.)

Bowling filed a habeas petition in Superior Court on April 24, 2005 challenging the

Board’s action at the 2004 hearing. (Document 10-3, at 2, 56.) The Superior Court

denied it on June 29, 2005. (Document 10-4, at 2-4.) Petitioner filed a notice of appeal

on August 10, 2005. (Id., at 7, 18.) The Court of Appeal denied the petition on

September 20, 2005. (Id., at 50.) Petitioner filed a petition for review in the California

Supreme Court (Document 10-5, at 2, 40), which it denied on September 13, 2006 (Id.,

at 46). Bowling filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court on

November 9, 2006. (Petition, at 8.) 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” (28. U.S.C. §636(b)(1).) The Court

reviews de novo the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law. Britt v. Simi Valley Unified

School District, 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds by

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-1122 (9th Cir. 2003). This Court

may dismiss a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus “[i]f it plainly appears from the face

of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to

Case 3:06-cv-02477-JLS-NLS Document 16 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 6
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 - 06 cv 2477 H

relief...” Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 (2nd Cir. 1983). Petitioners pro

se have a general lack of experience, so “courts should review habeas petitions [in these

cases] with a lenient eye, allowing borderline cases to proceed.” Id. 

Timeliness

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) sets a one-year

statute of limitations for non-capital habeas claims originating from state court

proceedings.

“A one-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ

of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a

State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of—(D) the

date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented

could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” 28

U.S.C. §2244(d)(1). 

“The time during which a properly filed application for State postconviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent

judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of

limitation under this subsection.” 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2).

The date of a factual predicate is when Petitioner could have learned of the

factual basis for his claims through the exercise of due diligence. Redd v. McGrath, 343

F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner argues in his reply brief that “this case arises

as a challenge to the denial of Petitioner’s parole for the 13th time [in 2004].”

(Document 14-2, at 1). Likewise, the Report and Recommendation to deny

Respondent’s motion to dismiss “does not construe the Petition as challenging the

second parole hearing” and finds that “Petitioner’s argument that the Board exceeded

its authority after the first parole hearing can be taken to mean that it exceeded its

Case 3:06-cv-02477-JLS-NLS Document 16 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 6
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

 To the extent Petitioner challenges the Board’s actions at the 1984 hearing, his challenge is

untimely under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(D).

- 4 - 06 cv 2477 H

authority at any of the subsequent hearings, not only at the second hearing.” (Report

and Recommendation, at 3-4). 

Petitioner’s due process and equal protection claims that the Board improperly

denied parole at his twelfth hearing are timely.4

 The factual predicate for these claims

formed as early as the Board’s denial of parole on December 22, 2004. Petitioner

contends the Board’s decision became final on April 20, 2005, and that he was unsure

of the denial until then. (Document 14-2, at 4.) In any case, Bowling filed a habeas

petition on April 24, 2005 challenging the Board’s action in the Superior Court, well

within five months of the establishment of the factual predicate for his

claims.(Document 10-3, at 2, 56.) The time during which a petition for habeas corpus

is pending in state court does not count toward the statute of limitations under AEDPA.

28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(2); Redd, 343 F.3d at 1083. Petitioner did not exhaust alternatives

in the California courts until the California Supreme Court denied his petition on

September 13, 2006. (Document 10-5, at 46.) Under Rule 24 of the California Rules of

Court, renumbered 8.264 in 2007, a decision of the Supreme Court is not final until 30

days after filing “and therefore is subject to further action during that time.” Bunney v.

Mitchell, 262 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir. 2001). Consequently, the limitations period

resumed on October 14, 2006. Petitioner filed for habeas relief in this Court on

November 9, 2006. (Petition, at 8.) Therefore, Petitioner filed for habeas relief in this

Court within approximately five months of the establishment of the factual predicate

of his claim, meeting the one-year requirement of 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(D).

Petitioner’s due process and equal protection claims as to the Board’s denial of parole

at Petitioner’s 2004 hearing are therefore timely. 

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

Case 3:06-cv-02477-JLS-NLS Document 16 Filed 06/26/07 Page 4 of 6
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 - 06 cv 2477 H

Federal Claims

Petitioner’s due process and equal protection claims as to the denial of parole at

his twelfth hearing are timely. Therefore, this Court must determine whether these

claims allege a federal question. 

Petitioner must allege a violation of the United States Constitution or a violation

of controlling precedent to win habeas relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68

(1991). Respondent alleges Petitioner argues the Board misinterpreted California Penal

Code section 3041(b), which is not a federal question upon which this Court may grant

habeas relief. (Document 10-2, at 4.) It is well settled that habeas relief is unavailable

for allegations of state law violations. 28 U.S.C. §2254(a); Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107,

119 (1982). 

Petitioner’s due process and equal protection claims concerning the denial of

parole at his twelfth hearing are proper before this Court. Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68;

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

CONCLUSION

For the above stated reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation and DENIES Respondent’s motion to dismiss Petitioner’s due

process and equal protection claims that the Board improperly denied parole at

Petitioner’s twelfth hearing in 2004. Accordingly, Respondent shall file an answer to

the Petition by July 31, 2007. Petitioner shall file any traverse by August 31, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June 26, 2007 

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

** Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes

Case 3:06-cv-02477-JLS-NLS Document 16 Filed 06/26/07 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 - 06 cv 2477 H

Dennis P. Bowling

B-82068 Fl-5-227 U

P.O. Box 799001

San Diego, CA 92179-9001

Kim Aarons

Deputy Attorney General

State of California

110 West A Street, Suite 1100

San Diego, CA 92101

Case 3:06-cv-02477-JLS-NLS Document 16 Filed 06/26/07 Page 6 of 6