Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05220/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05220-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Koenig
Respondent
Kevin R. Raby
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN R. RABY,

Petitioner,

v.

C. KOENIG, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-05220-YGR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming 

that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with a decision by the California Board of 

Parole Hearings (“Board”) in denying him parole on March 29, 2018. Petitioner specifically 

claims that the decision does not comport with due process because it is not supported by “some 

evidence” demonstrating that he poses a current unreasonable threat to the public. 

A prisoner subject to California’s parole statute receives adequate process when he is 

allowed an opportunity to be heard and is provided with a statement of the reasons why parole was 

denied. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). The allegations in the petition show 

Petitioner received at least this amount of process. Dkt. 1 at 14-27.

1

 The Constitution does not 

require more. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220.

Whether the Board’s decision was supported by some evidence of current dangerousness is 

irrelevant in federal habeas. The Supreme Court has made clear that “it is no federal concern . . . 

whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the 

Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Id. at 221. 

1 Page number citations refer to those assigned by the Court’s electronic case management 

filing system and not those assigned by Petitioner.

Case 4:19-cv-05220-YGR Document 10 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Pursuant to 

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said 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). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. 

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 9.

The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

March 24, 2020

Case 4:19-cv-05220-YGR Document 10 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 2