Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02420/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02420-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. Arnold
Respondent
Michael Marich
Petitioner

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MARICH,

Petitioner,

v.

E. ARNOLD,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-2420 CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to have all matters in this action 

before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Petitioner requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of the in forma 

pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the 

application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 

petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review.

Petitioner challenges the fact that he was denied parole in 2014. Essentially, he alleges 

the evidence presented at his hearing is not sufficient to sustain a denial of parole. Petitioner has 

a liberty interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Case 2:15-cv-02420-CKD Document 7 Filed 03/01/16 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

27

28

2

Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219-20 (2011). However, the procedural protections which 

must be afforded with respect to the liberty interest implicated are minimal; the AConstitution 

does not require more@ than Aan opportunity to be heard@ at a parole hearing and that the potential 

parolee be Aprovided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.@ Id. at 220. Petitioner 

has no liberty interest concerning the standard of proof necessary to sustain a denial of parole.1 

Accordingly, petitioner’s habeas petition will be summarily dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted; 

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed;

3. This case is closed; and

4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253.

Dated: March 1, 2016

1

mari2420.dis

 

1

 To the extent petitioner argues his being denied parole in 2014 amounts to a violation of 

California law, his claim is not cognizable as only violation of federal law can provide a basis for 

federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02420-CKD Document 7 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 2