Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00013/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00013-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Rackley
Respondent
Kevin Lavelle Walton
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

KEVIN LAVELLE WALTON,

Petitioner,

v.

RONALD RACKLEY,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-0013 CKD P

ORDER

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 in forma pauperis request 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).

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. Petitioner has consented to have all matters in this action before 

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

In his petition, petitioner complains about information presented in a document titled 

“Comprehensive Risk Assessment for the Board of Parole Hearings” (CRA). Pet., Ex. A. The 

document is dated May 23, 2012. Id. at 14. Apparently the information included in the 

document was considered by the California Board of Parole Hearings when petitioner was 

Case 2:15-cv-00013-CKD Document 7 Filed 02/05/15 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

considered for parole in August of 2012. Pet. at 6“F.” Petitioner asks that the court order the 

“CRA at issue . . . be expunged and removed from petitioner’s central file, mental health file and 

order a new CRA without mention of the [Rules Violation Report]1and the psychological reports 

dated from March 16, 2012 to August 2013.”

Generally speaking, a federal court entertains an application for writ of habeas corpus 

filed by a state prisoner only if the prisoner alleges he is in in custody in violation of federal law. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The relief which may be granted is either release from prison or reduction 

of sentence. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991). Petitioner seeks neither release 

from prison, nor a reduction of sentence and nothing suggests such relief is warranted. 

Apparently, petitioner is under the impression that if the CRA at issue is removed from 

consideration at his next parole hearing, his prospects for parole improve. However, he fails to 

point to anything which reasonably suggests as much. Furthermore, in Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 

S. Ct. 859 (2011), the Supreme Court found that prisoners being considered for parole under 

California law have a right arising under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to 

be heard at their parole proceedings and to be provided with a statement of reasons for denial of 

parole. Id. at 862. The Court specifically rejected the notion that there can be a valid claim under 

the Fourteenth Amendment for insufficiency of evidence presented at a parole proceeding. Id. at 

862-63. Since insufficiency of evidence presented at a parole proceeding is not a valid basis for 

habeas relief, the court cannot grant habeas relief based upon inaccurate evidence being presented 

at the hearing. Put another way, if the court has no reason to concern itself with whether the 

evidence presented at a parole proceeding met a certain evidentiary threshold, the court has no 

reason to concern itself with whether the evidence which was presented was misleading.2

 

1

 A “Rules Violation Report” is a document used by California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation staff to charge an inmate with a violation of institutional rules. Petitioner asserts 

the Rules Violation Report to which he refers above was never actually adjudicated. 

2

 The court notes that plaintiff has a right arising under California law to have any decision 

denying him parole be supported by at least “some evidence.” In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181, 

1212 (2008). This implies that petitioner also has a right under California law to not have a 

denial of parole based upon evidence that is patently false. Petitioner’s avenue of recourse with 

respect to violations of California law lies within California’s courts because, as indicated above, 

Case 2:15-cv-00013-CKD Document 7 Filed 02/05/15 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

Because it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to any relief authorized in a federal habeas 

action, petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus will be summarily dismissed, and this 

case will be closed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) 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: February 5, 2015

1

moff2139.114(p)

 

federal habeas relief cannot be based upon a violation of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00013-CKD Document 7 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 3