Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02019/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02019-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON BURNIGHT, No. 2:05-cv-2019-MCE-GGH-P

Petitioner, 

v. ORDER

T. CAREY, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

this Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On July 26, 2006, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which

contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. 

Case 2:05-cv-02019-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 09/29/06 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

Petitioner has filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court rejects the magistrate judge’s

recommendation that Respondent’s December 12, 2005 Amended Motion

to Dismiss be granted on grounds that the California parole

scheme for indeterminate sentences, as set forth in California

Penal Code § 2041, does not give rise to a federally protected

liberty interest pursuant to the undersigned’s decision in Sass

v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 376 F. Supp. 2d 975 (E.D. Cal.

2005). The Ninth Circuit, however, in Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison

Terms, 2006 WL 2506393, at *4 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2006), recently

disagreed with this Court’s Sass analysis, holding that

California law does afford a constitutionally protected liberty

interest in a parole date. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit’s

Sass decision undercuts the rationale for recommending that the

instant Amended Motion to Dismiss be granted, and instead

mandates that said Motion be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed July 26, 2006,

are rejected; and

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02019-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 09/29/06 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

2. Respondent’s December 12, 2005 Amended Motion to Dismiss

is denied. 

3. Respondent is directed to file a response to

Petitioner’s Application within thirty (30) days following the

date of this Order. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed

and served within thirty (30) days following service of an

answer.

DATED: September 28, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02019-MCE-CHS Document 14 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3