Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01076/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01076-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Defendant
Paul Winfield
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL WINFIELD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1076 LKK GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 14, 2007, the court dismissed the second amended complaint

with leave to file a third amended complaint. On January 2, 2008, and January 4, 2008, plaintiff

filed third amended complaints. Accordingly, the court will consider the third amended

complaint filed January 4, 2008.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Schwarzenegger violated his right to due process

by holding plaintiff’s parole hearing two weeks late three years ago. 

In order to demonstrate that the two week delay in his receipt of his parole hearing

violated due process, plaintiff must demonstrate that the delay was unreasonable and prejudicial. 

See Hopper v. United States Parole Comm’n., 702 F.2d 842, 847 (9th Cir. 1983). “However, due

process ‘does not include receiving a parole hearing in exact accordance with the specific time

Case 2:07-cv-01076-LKK -GGH Document 17 Filed 03/07/08 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

period required by [state regulations.]’ “ Johnson v. Paparozzi, 219 F. Supp. 2d 635, 652

(D.N.J.2002); see February 24, 2006, findings and recommendations, pp. 14-15, William v.

Board of Prison Terms, CIV S-02-2323 LKK KJM P, adopted by the Honorable Lawrence K.

Karlton, March 30, 2006. The denial of a timely parole proceeding is not a per se violation of

due process. Jefferson v. Hart, 84 F.3d 1314, 1316-17 (10th Cir.1996); Id. To show a due

process violation from a delayed hearing, a prisoner must show prejudice from the delay. Cf.

Camacho v. White, 918 F.2d 74, 78-80 (9th Cir.1990). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that

the two week delay was prejudicial. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 03/07/08 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

win1076.dis

Case 2:07-cv-01076-LKK -GGH Document 17 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2