Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01210/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01210-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Rackley
Respondent
Thomas J. Waddell
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

THOMAS J. WADDELL,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD RACKLEY,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-1210 MCE CKD P

ORDER &

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I. Introduction

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this action. 

Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner is serving a 15-year prison term pursuant to a 2009 conviction in the San Mateo 

County Superior Court for assault with a deadly weapon. (ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 1-3, Ex. C.) 

He challenges a 2015 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) denying his release on 

parole for five enumerated reasons. (Id. at 5; see ECF No. 1-1, Ex. A.) Citing these reasons, the 

BPH concluded that petitioner “continues to pose an unreasonable risk of violence to the 

community.” (ECF No. 1-1, Ex. A.) Petitioner asserts that these reasons are not supported by 

evidence in the record. (Id.) 

Case 2:16-cv-01210-MCE-CKD Document 10 Filed 08/29/16 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

27

28

2

II. Discussion

In 2011, the United States Supreme Court overruled a line of Ninth Circuit precedent that 

had supported habeas review in California cases involving denials of parole by the BPH and/or 

the governor. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011). The Supreme Court held that federal 

habeas jurisdiction does not extend to review of the evidentiary basis for state parole decisions. 

Because habeas relief is not available for errors of state law, and because the Due Process Clause 

does not require correct application of California’s “some evidence” standard for denial of parole, 

federal courts may not intervene in parole decisions as long as minimum procedural protections 

are provided. Id. at 220-21. Federal due process protection for such a state-created liberty 

interest is “minimal,” the determination being whether “the minimum procedures adequate for 

due-process protection of that interest” have been met. The inquiry is limited to whether the 

prisoner was given the opportunity to be heard and received a statement of the reasons why parole 

was denied. Id. at 221; Miller v. Oregon Bd. of Parole and Post– Prison Supervision, 642 F.3d 

711, 716 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The Supreme Court held in Swarthout that in the context of parole 

eligibility decisions the due process right is procedural, and entitles a prisoner to nothing more 

than a fair hearing and a statement of reasons for a parole board’s decision.”). This procedural 

inquiry is “the beginning and the end of” a federal habeas court’s analysis of whether due process 

has been violated when a state prisoner is denied parole. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220. The Ninth 

Circuit has acknowledged that after Swarthout, substantive challenges to parole decisions are not 

cognizable in habeas. Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011).

Here, petitioner’s claim that the BPH’s decision was not supported by record evidence is 

not cognizable in habeas under Swarthout. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases 

Under Section 2254 provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears 

from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to 

relief in the district court.” For the foregoing reasons, and because it does not appear that the 

petition can be cured by amendment, the petition should be summarily dismissed.

////

////

Case 2:16-cv-01210-MCE-CKD Document 10 Filed 08/29/16 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

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis is granted.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition be summarily dismissed pursuant to 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases under Section 2254.

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 fourteen days 

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

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a 

certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 

case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 

deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 

Petitioner 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: August 29, 2016

2/ wadd1210.parole

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-01210-MCE-CKD Document 10 Filed 08/29/16 Page 3 of 3