Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00951/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00951-3/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERTO GONZALES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-CV-00951 LJO NEW (DLB) HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #11]

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 May 16, 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 June 18, 2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Petitioner argues the Magistrate Judge misapplied the correct standard of review. Petitioner’s

Case 1:06-cv-00951-LJO-LJO Document 13 Filed 06/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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 cd 2

arguments are without merit. As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, Title 15, of the California Code

of Regulations, Section 2402(c)(1) sets forth circumstances tending to demonstrate unsuitability for

parole when the prisoner committed the offense in an especially heinous, atrocious or cruel manner. 

The factors to be considered include:

(A) Multiple victims were attacked, injured or killed in the same or separate incidents.

(B) The offense was carried out in a dispassionate and calculated manner, such as an

execution-style murder.

(C) The victim was abused, defiled or mutilated during or after the offense.

(D) The offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates an exceptionally

callous disregard for human suffering.

(E) The motive for the crime is inexplicable or very trivial in relation to the offense.

15 Cal.Code Regs. § 2402(c)(1)(A)-(E).

The Board of Prison Terms found Petitioner unsuitable for parole based on positive findings

of factors (A), (B), and (E). The Magistrate Judge determined there was some evidence supporting

these findings, and Petitioner as well concedes the facts support these findings. Yet, Petitioner argues

that relying on these factors is insufficient to find him unsuitable for parole. He argues that factors of

suitability greatly outweigh these unchanging factors of unsuitability. However, it is not the Court’s

province to re-weigh the evidence and factors of suitability and unsuitability. Superintendent, Mass.

Correc. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). As discussed by the Magistrate Judge, the

Constitution only requires that the Board’s findings and decision be supported by “some evidence.”

Id., at 454. 

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

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. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued May 16, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

Case 1:06-cv-00951-LJO-LJO Document 13 Filed 06/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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 cd 3

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: June 22, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00951-LJO-LJO Document 13 Filed 06/22/07 Page 3 of 3