Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05012/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-05012-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction on

November 24, 2014.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

M.E. SPEARMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 14-5012 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Ray Martinez, a prisoner at the Correctional Training Facility, filed a pro se petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is now before the Court

for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases.1

 Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. For the reasons stated

below, Petitioner’s federal habeas petition is DISMISSED.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ

or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

Case 5:14-cv-05012-NC Document 6 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in

the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Petitioner alleges that the Board of Parole

Hearings violated his due process rights because the Board’s denial of parole was not based

on “some evidence.” However, the Supreme Court has made clear that a prisoner’s federal

due process claim regarding a denial of parole is limited to whether he received the minimum

procedures necessary under the federal constitution. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862

(2011) (per curiam). Specifically, this Court’s inquiry is limited to whether Petitioner was

given an opportunity to be heard, and given a statement of reasons for the denial. Id., citing

Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979). 

Petitioner’s petition demonstrates that he was given those minimum protections. Thus,

Petitioner’s allegations fail to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. See id.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall

terminate all pending motions and close the file.

The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district

court that denies a habeas petition to grant or deny a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in

its ruling. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner

has not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). Accordingly, a COA is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 3, 2015 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-05012-NC Document 6 Filed 03/03/15 Page 2 of 2