Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00829/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00829-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

KHALIFAH E.D. SAIF’ULLAH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0829 LKK GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF 

PRISON TERMS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On June 14, 2005, the court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend. 

Pending before the court is the amended complaint filed June 27, 2005.

Plaintiff alleges that he has been improperly found unsuitable for parole. In

particular, plaintiff alleges that the Board of Prison Terms (BPT) has failed to follow the

appropriate regulations and has instead applied a “no parole” policy to find him unsuitable. 

Plaintiff contends that Cal. Penal Code § 1170.2 requires the BPT to establish his release date,

which it has not done. Plaintiff also contends that Cal. Penal Code § 3041 also requires the BPT

to set a release date.

As explained in the June 14, 2005, order, prior to July 1, 1977, California

operated under an indeterminate sentencing law (ISL) system. Guzman v. Morris, 644 F.2d

Case 2:05-cv-00829-LKK -GGH Document 7 Filed 07/21/05 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

2

1295, 1296 (9th Cir. 1981). On July 1, 1977, California’s Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL)

went into effect. Id. As part of the conversion from the ISL to DSL, certain indeterminate

sentences were to be “reset.” Id. The provisions of Cal. Penal Code § 1170.2 apply to the

resetting of sentences imposed for felonies committed prior to July 1, 1977. The DSL contains

some provisions for indeterminate sentences. See In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1078, 23

Cal.Rptr.3d 417 (2005). 

Plaintiff’s commitment offense and sentence occurred after July 1, 1977, under

indeterminate sentencing provisions of the determinate sentencing law. Plaintiff’s life sentence

is an indeterminate sentence. See Danneberg, at 1078, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417. As such, plaintiff

“becomes eligible for parole after serving [a] minimum term [] of confinement,” but the

determination of his actual term of confinement rests with the Board of Prison Terms. Id.

Plaintiff’s contention that, absent notice and hearing, he was entitled to release on a date set

pursuant to the provisions of Cal. Penal Code § 1170.2 is without merit; that section has no

application to plaintiff.

Plaintiff is correct that his eligibility for parole is governed by the provisions of

Cal. Penal Code § 3041. This section provides, 

(a) In the case of any prisoner sentenced pursuant to any provision of law, other 

than Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, the Board 

of Prison Terms shall meet with each inmate during the third year of 

incarceration for the purposes of reviewing the inmate’s file, making 

recommendations, and documenting activities and conduct pertinent to granting 

or withholding postconviction credit. One year prior to the inmate’s minimum 

eligible parole release date a panel consisting of at least two commissioners of 

the Board of Prison Terms shall again meet with the inmate and shall normally 

set a parole release date as provided in Section 3041.5. The panel shall consist 

solely of commissioners or deputy commissioners from the Board of Prison

Terms.

The release date shall be set in a manner that will provide uniform terms for 

offenses of similar gravity and magnitude in respect to their threat to the public, 

and that will comply with the sentencing rules that the Judicial Council may 

issue and any sentencing information relevant to the setting of parole release 

dates. The board shall establish criteria for the setting of parole release dates and 

in doing so shall consider the number of victims of the crime for which the 

prisoner was sentenced and other factors in mitigation or aggravation of the 

Case 2:05-cv-00829-LKK -GGH Document 7 Filed 07/21/05 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

3

crime. 

Cal. Penal Code § 3041.

In compliance with the statutory mandate, the Board of Prison Terms issued

regulations which guide it in finding prisoners convicted of life offenses with parole eligibility

for parole setting. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2402. 

Section 3041 requires the BPT to find a prisoner eligible for parole if the prisoner

meets the criteria set forth in the established regulations. To succeed on his claim that he was

denied parole pursuant to a no-parole policy, plaintiff must demonstrate that, pursuant to the

regulations, he met the criteria for parole suitability. Plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations

supporting such a claim. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

The court will grant plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his complaint to state

a colorable claim. If plaintiff files a second amended complaint, he should address the issues

discussed above by the court. If possible, plaintiff should provide the court with the transcript

from the suitability hearing he is challenging. The second amended complaint should not include

any claims found not colorable by the court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s amended complaint filed

June 27, 2005, is dismissed with thirty days to file a second amended complaint; failure to file a

second amended complaint within that time will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this

action.

DATED: 7/20/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

saif829.ame

Case 2:05-cv-00829-LKK -GGH Document 7 Filed 07/21/05 Page 3 of 3