Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02251/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02251-0/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)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN JAMES BLAKE,

Petitioner,

v.

J. TIM OCHOA, WARDEN, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12-CV-2251-

MMA(JMA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE MOTION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

[Doc. No. 15] 

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Melvin James Blake (hereafter

“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (hereafter “Petition”) challenging the

Governor’s August 1, 2011 decision to reverse the Board of

Parole Hearing’s grant of parole. Petitioner contends

federal habeas relief is proper because the Governor’s

decision was an unreasonable determination of the facts in

light of the evidence presented. (Petitioner’s Traverse at

12cv2251 1

Case 3:12-cv-02251-MMA-JMA Document 17 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 10
 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.)1/ Respondent J. Tim Ochoa, Warden (hereafter

“Respondent”) moves to dismiss the Petition. (Motion to

Dismiss.) Respondent argues the Petition must be

dismissed because it does not set forth a cognizable claim

for federal habeas corpus relief. (Id. at 1.)

The undersigned has reviewed the Petition,

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, and Petitioner’s

Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Based on the

pleadings and for the reasons set forth below, the

undersigned RECOMMENDS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be

GRANTED and the Petition be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1976, Petitioner was convicted of first degree

murder in San Diego Superior Court. (Order Transferring

Action at 1.) Currently, he is serving a sentence of life

imprisonment at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison. (Id.) 

On March 4, 2011, Petitioner appeared before the Board of

Parole Hearings for a subsequent parole consideration

hearing. (Pet., Doc. No. 1-1 at 20.)2/ The Board of

Parole Hearings found Petitioner suitable for parole. 

(Id., Doc. No. 1-3 at 12-19.) However, on August 1, 2011,

Governor Brown reversed the decision of the Board of

1/

Petitioner entitled the document “Petitioner’s Traverse.” 

However, the Court construes the document as Petitioner’s Opposition

to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. 

2/

All references to the record are to the Court’s ECF

pagination, unless otherwise noted. 

12cv2251 2

Case 3:12-cv-02251-MMA-JMA Document 17 Filed 06/26/13 Page 2 of 10
 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

Parole Hearings and denied parole under California Penal

Code § 3041.2.3/ (Id. at 21-24.)

Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus challenging the Governor’s decision in San Diego

County Superior Court. On October 5, 2011, that court

denied the petition. (Id. at 26-32.) Petitioner

subsequently filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in

the California Court of Appeal. (Petitioner’s Opposition

to Motion to Dismiss at 2.) The California Court of

Appeal denied that petition without an opinion. (Id.)

Finally, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus in the California Supreme Court. The California

Supreme Court summarily denied that petition. (Id.) 

On August 6, 2012, Petitioner filed the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus that is now before this Court. 

Although the Petition raises five claims (see Pet., Doc.

No. 1 at 5-6), Petitioner summarizes them as stating the

two following claims: (1) violation of his due process

rights when the Governor reversed his parole grant based

upon an unreasonable determination of the facts in light

of the evidence presented, and (2) the Governor’s decision

denying parole was not supported by sufficient evidence

that Petitioner poses an unreasonable risk of danger to

society. (Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at

3.)

3/

Penal Code section 3041.2 authorizes the Governor to review

parole decisions of the Board of Parole Hearings concerning persons

sentenced to an indeterminate term upon conviction of murder. Cal.

Penal Code § 3041.2.

12cv2251 3

Case 3:12-cv-02251-MMA-JMA Document 17 Filed 06/26/13 Page 3 of 10
 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

Respondent moves to dismiss the Petition on the

ground that it fails to state a cognizable federal claim

for federal habeas corpus relief. (Motion to Dismiss at

1.) 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Petition is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as

amended by the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). Section 2254(a) sets forth the

following scope of review for federal habeas corpus

claims:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit

judge, or a district court shall entertain an

application for a 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).

As amended, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) reads:

(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus

on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a State court shall not be granted

with respect to any claim that was adjudicated

on the merits in State court proceedings unless

the adjudication of the claim -- 

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary

to, or involved an unreasonable application of,

clearly established Federal law, as determined

by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light

of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1-2).

Under § 2254(a), a federal court may issue a writ of

habeas corpus to a state prisoner “only on the ground that

he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws

12cv2251 4

Case 3:12-cv-02251-MMA-JMA Document 17 Filed 06/26/13 Page 4 of 10
 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

or treaties of the United States.” See, e.g., Swarthout

v. Cooke, 562 U.S. ----, 131 S. Ct. 859, 861 (2011);

Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. ----, 131 S. Ct. 13, 16

(2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). The Supreme Court

has continually held that “federal habeas corpus relief

does not lie for errors of state law.” See, e.g., Cooke,

131 S. Ct at 861; Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67

(1991) (quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780

(1990)). 

To obtain federal habeas relief, Petitioner must

satisfy either § 2254(d)(1) or § 2254(d)(2). See Williams

v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 399, 403 (2000). Under section

2254(d)(1), “a state court decision is ‘contrary to our

clearly established precedent if the state court applies

a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our

cases’ or ‘if the state court confronts a set of facts

that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of

this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different

from our precedent.’” See, e.g., Lockyer v. Andrade, 538

U.S. 63, 73 (2003) (citing Taylor, 529 U.S. at 405-06). 

Under § 2254(d)(2), “a federal habeas court may grant the

writ if the state court identifies the correct governing

legal principle from this Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the

prisoner’s case.” Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75 (citing Taylor,

529 U.S. at 413). The Supreme Court has clarified that

even an erroneous or incorrect state court application of

clearly established law is insufficient for a habeas

12cv2251 5

Case 3:12-cv-02251-MMA-JMA Document 17 Filed 06/26/13 Page 5 of 10
 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

grant, unless the state court’s application was

“objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75.

When there is no reasoned decision from the state’s

highest court, a federal habeas court “looks through” to

the underlying appellate court decision. See Ylst v.

Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 801-06 (1991). If the

dispositive state court order does not “furnish a basis

for its reasoning,” the federal habeas court must conduct

an independent review of the record to determine whether

the state court’s decision is contrary to, or an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme

Court law. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 981-82

(9th Cir. 2000) (overruled on other grounds by Lockyer,

538 U.S. at 75-76). A state court need not cite Supreme

Court precedent when resolving a habeas corpus claim. 

Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). Absent citations

to Supreme Court precedent, habeas relief is not merited

if the state court decision neither contradicts the

reasoning nor the result of Supreme Court holdings. Id.

IV. DISCUSSION

Petitioner claims that habeas relief is proper based

on a violation of his due process rights in connection

with the Governor’s decision to deny parole. Petitioner

accuses the Governor of continued reliance on unchanging

circumstances, i.e., the gravity of his commitment

offense, and of unreasonably determining that Petitioner

still constitutes a danger to society. (Pet., Doc. No. 1

12cv2251 6

Case 3:12-cv-02251-MMA-JMA Document 17 Filed 06/26/13 Page 6 of 10
 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

at 22-38.) Petitioner’s contentions are premised on the

Governor’s decision being an unreasonable application of

California’s “some evidence” standard. 

The Supreme Court has stated many times that federal

habeas corpus relief is not available to correct alleged

errors in a state court’s application or interpretation of

state law. See, e.g., Cooke, 131 S. Ct at 8614/; Estelle,

502 U.S. at 67 (quoting Jeffers, 497 U.S. at 780). The

Ninth Circuit interpreted the Cooke holding as providing

that “there is no substantive due process right created by

California’s parole scheme.” Styre v. Adams 645 F.3d

1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011). Since a “mere error of state

law” is not a denial of due process, the only federal

right at issue in a parole context is procedural. Cooke,

131 S. Ct at 863; see also Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67-68. 

Therefore, in deciding a federal due process claim, the

federal court must look to the process the Petitioner

received, not to the merits of the Governor’s decision.

Cooke, 131 S. Ct at 863. 

4/

In Cooke, one of the two petitioners was convicted of firstdegree murder and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years to life

with the possibility of parole. In 2003, the parole board granted

the petitioner parole, but the Governor exercised his authority and

reversed the parole grant. The Governor cited the gravity of the

petitioner’s crime along with his criminal history, failure to

participate in self-help programs, and propensity for substance

abuse. The petitioner exhausted his state court remedies before the

District Court granted habeas relief. The Ninth Circuit affirmed

the holding that the Governor’s decision was an unreasonable

application of California’s “some evidence” rule and was an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no

federal due process violation. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. at 861.

12cv2251 7

Case 3:12-cv-02251-MMA-JMA Document 17 Filed 06/26/13 Page 7 of 10
 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

In Cooke, the Supreme Court engaged in the standard

analysis under the Due Process Clause, which proceeds in

two steps: (1) whether there exists a liberty or property

interest of which a person has been deprived, and if so,

(2) whether procedures followed by the State were

constitutionally sufficient. Cooke, 131 S. Ct at 861. 

The Supreme Court left intact Ninth Circuit precedent that

California law creates a liberty interest in parole. Id.

Therefore, the Due Process Clause requires fair procedures

for its vindication. Id. at 861-62. 

Federal due process procedures in the context of

parole are minimal. See id. at 862; Greenholtz v. Inmates

of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16

(1979). The Supreme Court has held that adequate process

for a prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to

California’s is allowing an inmate the opportunity to be

heard and providing the inmate with a statement describing

the reasons why parole was denied. Greenholtz, 442 U.S.

at 16. In Cooke and Greenholtz, the Supreme Court held

that the Constitution does not require more than these

protections. Cooke, 131 S. Ct at 862; Greenholtz, 442

U.S. at 16.

Petitioner appeared before the California Board of

Parole Hearings on March 4, 2011. (Pet., Doc. No. 1-1 at

20.) At the parole hearing, Petitioner was given the

opportunity to be heard and to contest the evidence

against him. (Id., Doc. No. 1-1 at 20 to Doc. No. 1-3 at

20.) Also, the Governor provided Petitioner with a state12cv2251 8

Case 3:12-cv-02251-MMA-JMA Document 17 Filed 06/26/13 Page 8 of 10
 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

ment of reasons why his parole was denied. (Id., Doc. No.

1-3 at 22-24.) The Governor based his decision to reverse

the Parole Board’s parole grant partially on the

evaluation of a psychologist who examined Petitioner, and

Petitioner’s “high and “moderate” chances of recidivism.

(Id. at 22-23.) The Governor further based his decision

on the following: the Petitioner’s lack of insight on his

underlying crime of murder, his insufficient participation

in self-help programs, and his lack of well-considered

parole plans. (Id.) Petitioner does not dispute receiving the procedural protections afforded to him by federal

due process. Since the Petitioner was afforded the

procedural protections required by federal due process as

established in Greenholtz and Cooke, there is no

cognizable claim set forth for federal habeas corpus

relief. 

Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and the Petition be DISMISSED

with prejudice. 

V. CONCLUSION

After a review of the record in this matter, the

undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Petitioner has not

established a claim for federal habeas corpus relief under

the applicable legal standards. Therefore, the Court

RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED

and the Petition be DISMISSED with prejudice.

12cv2251 9

Case 3:12-cv-02251-MMA-JMA Document 17 Filed 06/26/13 Page 9 of 10
 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

This Report and Recommendation of the undersigned

Magistrate Judge is submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than July 17, 2013, any

party may file written objections with the Court and serve

a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all

parties no later than July 31, 2013. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections

on appeal of the 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).

DATED: June 26, 2013

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

12cv2251 10

Case 3:12-cv-02251-MMA-JMA Document 17 Filed 06/26/13 Page 10 of 10