Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01762/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01762-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy Lee Miles
Petitioner
Stu Sherman
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On November 21, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Petitioner challenges a parole suitability determination and the Court is 

without jurisdiction to review the substantive due process of a parole suitability determination, the 

Court will recommend the petition be DISMISSED.

I. Preliminary Screening of the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 

entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the 

clerk to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, 

JIMMY LEE MILES,

 Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01762-JLT (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

SUMMARILY DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION 

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE 

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01762-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.2001). A 

petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no 

tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th 

Cir. 1971). The Court will review the instant petition pursuant to its authority under Rule 4.

II. Failure to State a Claim Cognizable Under Federal Habeas Corpus

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 

1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA imposes various requirements on all petitions for writ of habeas corpus 

filed after the date of its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 

F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). The instant petition was filed on November 21, 2016, and 

thus, it is subject to the provisions of the AEDPA. 

Petitioner alleges that he is an inmate of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation who is serving a sentence of ten years-to-life imposed in the Fresno County Superior 

Court after his 1986 conviction for kidnapping with great bodily injury and robbery with use of a 

firearm. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Petitioner does not challenge either his conviction or sentence; rather, he

challenges the 2013 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) finding him 

unsuitable for parole. He claims the seven year parole denial is disproportionate compared to other 

inmates similarly situated. He further claims the factors relied on by the BPH were unsupported. 

Petitioner’s claims concern the decision of the BPH. These claims are foreclosed by the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011). In Swarthout, the Supreme 

Court held that the federal habeas court’s inquiry into whether a prisoner who has been denied parole 

received due process is limited to determining whether the prisoner “was allowed an opportunity to be 

heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Id., (citing Greenholtz v. 

Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979)). Petitioner does not contend 

he was denied these procedural due process guarantees. According to the Supreme Court, this is “the 

beginning and the end of the federal habeas courts’ inquiry into whether [the prisoner] received due 

process.” Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220. “‘The Constitution,’ [the Supreme Court] held, ‘does not 

require more.’” Id., (quoting Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16). Therefore, Petitioner’s challenges to the 

Board’s denial of parole fail to present cognizable federal claims for relief and the petition should be 

Case 1:16-cv-01762-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 12/15/16 Page 2 of 3
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

dismissed.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District Judge to 

this case.

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the instant petition for writ of 

habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which federal habeas relief 

can be granted. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the 

Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636 (b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01762-LJO-JLT Document 6 Filed 12/15/16 Page 3 of 3