Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01962/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01962-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duffy
Respondent
Oshay Johnson
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

OSHAY JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

DUFFY,

Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-1962 DAD P

ORDER

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 

the costs of suit. Accordingly, the court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

For the reasons discussed herein, the court will dismiss the instant petition for failure to 

state a cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief.

1

PRELIMINARY SCREENING

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 

petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the 

 

1

Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(c). (Doc. No. 4) 

Case 2:13-cv-01962-DAD Document 6 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 4
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

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases. See also O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 

F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1983). The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court 

may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus at several stages of a case, including “summary 

dismissal under Rule 4; a dismissal pursuant to a motion by the respondent; a dismissal after the 

answer and petition are considered; or a dismissal after consideration of the pleadings and an 

expanded record.” 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner commenced this action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which 

he asserts two claims: (1) the Board of Parole Hearings’ (“Board”) abused its discretion when it 

summarily denied his request to advance his next parole hearing; and (2) the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by 

altering the procedure used to calculate his minimum eligible parole date. (Pet. at 4 & Pet’r’s 

Mem. of P. & A.) 

ANALYSIS

The court will dismiss the instant petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal 

habeas corpus relief. As to petitioner’s first claim regarding the Board’s summary denial of his 

request to advance his next parole hearing, petitioner has not cited any federal authority 

demonstrating that he did not receive the process he was due, if any, when the Board denied his 

request. In fact, District Courts throughout the Ninth Circuit have consistently rejected claims 

advanced by state prisoners that the Board violates either federal law or any provision of the U.S. 

Constitution when it denies a petition to advance parole hearings. See Saffold v. Hill, No. 2:12-

cv-3064 JAM DAD P, 2013 WL 6283893 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2013) (petitioner’s challenge to 

the Board’s decision to deny his request to advance his next parole hearing date fails to state a 

cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief); Sardella-Lagomarsino v. Swarthout, No. 2:12-

cv-1866 TLN KJN P, 2013 WL 1628242 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2013) (“if due process does not 

require an evidentiary review of a decision denying parole . . . then there can be no due process 

right to an evidentiary review of a decision denying a request to advance a suitability hearing.”); 

Case 2:13-cv-01962-DAD Document 6 Filed 08/13/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Johnson v. Hartley, No. 1:12-cv-02008 LJO SAB (HC), 2013 WL 440990 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 

2013) (“Although there are certain minimal procedural due process protections implicated by a 

board’s decision to deny parole as set forth in the Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout v. 

Cooke, such decision does not apply to a board’s decision not to advance a parole hearing.”) 

(internal citations omitted); Aranda v. Grounds, No. C 12-4578, 2012 WL 5289401 at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Oct. 25, 2012) (“petitioner’s claims that the Board violated his federal right to due process in 

denying his application to advance his parole hearing are without merit.”); Charity v. Ochoa, CV 

No. 12-4825 R (AJW), 2012 WL 4471592 at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 15, 2012) (“petitioner’s 

challenge to the Board’s decision not to hold his next parole hearing sooner involves only the 

Board’s compliance or non-compliance with state statutes and regulations governing the 

scheduling of parole suitability hearings, so it does not present a federal question.”). The 

undersigned finds those decisions to be persuasive on the issue and this case is no different than 

those which resulted in the decisions cited above. 

As to petitioner’s second claim regarding CDCR altering the procedure used to calculate 

his minimum eligible parole date, again, petitioner has not cited any federal authority 

demonstrating that CDCR has violated clearly established federal law. In fact, it appears that 

petitioner’s claim seeks to challenge changes in procedures CDCR made in light of the California 

Supreme Court decision, People v. Jefferson, 21 Cal. 4th 86 (1999) (holding that the minimum 

15-year term of imprisonment required under a criminal street gang provision set the minimum 

term for a sentence and was not a sentence enhancement).

2

 However, “there is no Ex Post Facto 

Clause violation when prison procedures change, to the prisoner’s detriment, in response to an 

 

2

In his second claim for federal habeas relief , petitioner challenges changes in procedures 

CDCR made as outlined in an August 7, 2000 Instructional Memorandum. Petitioner did not 

attach the memorandum to his petition filed in this court. At the outset of his petition, however,

petitioner explained that he had previously submitted his two claims in another petition filed in 

this court. In that prior case, the court dismissed the claims and instructed him to file a new 

action to assert the claims. See Case No. 2:13-cv-08789 CKD. Petitioner attached the August 7, 

2000 Instructional Memorandum to the petition filed in his prior case (Pet. at 162-163), which the 

court has reviewed in order to gain further clarity of petitioner’s claims presented herein. See

United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“a court may take judicial notice of 

its own records in other cases”). 

Case 2:13-cv-01962-DAD Document 6 Filed 08/13/14 Page 3 of 4
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

4

authoritative state court decision correcting an administrative body’s previously erroneous 

application of state law.” See Madrid v. Trimble, No. EDCV 12-0962 PSG (SS), 2013 WL 

5951971 at *6-*7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2013) (rejecting petitioner’s claim that CDCR violated the 

Ex Post Facto Clause when it changed its method for calculating an MEPD because CDCR’s

changes were dictated by California court decisions) (citing Mileham v. Simmons, 588 F.2d 1279

(9th Cir. 1979)); Holguin v. Raines, 695 F.2d 372 (9th Cir. 1982)).3 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted;

2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed for failure to 

state a cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief;

3. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

4. This action is closed.

Dated: August 12, 2014

DAD:9

john1962.156

 

3

Petitioner’s claim also appears to be based on state law and therefore fails to state a cognizable 

claim for federal habeas corpus review. See Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990) (“federal 

habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law”); see also Drew v. Busby, No. CV 10-

5345-AHM (DTB), 2012 WL 2005196 at 6 *7 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2012) (“This Court is bound 

by the state court’s determination that state law was not violated by the Board and CDCR’s 

calculation of petitioner’s minimum eligible parole date.”). 

Case 2:13-cv-01962-DAD Document 6 Filed 08/13/14 Page 4 of 4