Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01910/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01910-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL DURAN,

Petitioner,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01910-JDP (HC)

ORDER

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 

ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT THE AMENDED PETITION BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM

ECF No. 7

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

Petitioner, a state prisoner represented by counsel, brings this action under section 2254

and alleges that the state’s denial of parole was erroneous because it was not supported by “some 

evidence.” ECF No. 7 at 3-4. I previously explained that, in light of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Swarthout v. Cook, 562 U.S. 216 (2011), the only requirements for parole in the 

federal habeas context are that the prisoner be afforded an opportunity to be heard and a statement 

of reasons for why parole was denied. Id. at 220. I gave petitioner leave to amend and the new 

petition offers only the same argument: that the state failed to produce “some evidence” to justify 

Case 2:23-cv-01910-DJC-JDP Document 8 Filed 10/03/24 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

2

the denial. ECF No. 7 at 4. The Supreme Court was explicit, stating “it is no federal concern 

here whether California's ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the 

Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 221. Accordingly, I now 

recommend this action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this action.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended petition, ECF No. 7, be DISMISSED 

for failure to state a cognizable claim and the Clerk of Court be directed to close this matter.

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 of 

service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 

court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 

within fourteen days of 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. See 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01910-DJC-JDP Document 8 Filed 10/03/24 Page 2 of 2