Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01480/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01480-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Dana
Petitioner
Teresa A. Schwartz
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DANA, 

NO. CIV. S-05-1480 LKK/DAD P

Petitioner,

v.

O R D E R

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. This petition challenges the

March 10, 2004 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms

(now the California Board of Parole Hearings) finding petitioner

unsuitable for parole. On August 17, 2009, the magistrate judge

filed findings and recommendations recommending that this petition

be denied. This court adopted those findings and recommendations

in full on September 29, 2009.

Petitioner has since filed an appeal. The Ninth Circuit

recently held that appeal of denial of a habeas petition

Case 2:05-cv-01480-LKK -DAD Document 45 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 2
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

challenging a parole decision required a certificate of

appealability. Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.

2010) (en banc).

“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims

on the merits, the showing required to satisfy [28 U.S.C.] §

2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of

the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In this case, the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations, which this court adopted in full,

concluded that petitioner’s lack of realistic parole plans,

psychiatric reports indicating a high risk of substance abuse

relapse, and the circumstances of his conviction provide some

evidence of future dangerousness for purposes of federal habeas

review. Although reasonable jurists may disagree about the

appropriateness of reliance on the circumstances of the conviction

offense and about federal court’s ability to review such reliance

in habeas, it does not appear that reasonable jurists would

disagree that the totality of evidence exceeded the some evidence

threshold. Nor could reasonable jurists disagree with the court’s

ex post facto analysis.

Accordingly, the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of

appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 2, 2010.

Case 2:05-cv-01480-LKK -DAD Document 45 Filed 07/02/10 Page 2 of 2