Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00555/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00555-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gonzalo R. Gonzales
Petitioner
Joe Lizarraga
Respondent

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

GONZALO R. GONZALES,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE LIZARRAGA,

Respondent.

No. 2: 16-cv-0555 MCE KJN 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. Petitioner paid the filing fee. 

Petitioner appears to claim that the California Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) found 

him unsuitable for parole based on inaccurate information. In particular, petitioner appears to 

argue that the BPH relied on a probation report that did not accurately describe his offense. 

Petitioner also argues that the probation report also did not contain statements by the sentencing 

judge that petitioner should have been found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder. 

In the parole context, due process requires only that a prisoner be given an opportunity to 

be heard and a statement of the reasons parole was denied. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 

220 (2011). As the United States Supreme Court explained, “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 863. 

Case 2:16-cv-00555-MCE-KJN Document 7 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Here, petitioner does not allege that he was not given an opportunity to be heard at any 

parole suitability hearing or that he was not given a statement of reasons why parole was denied. 

Petitioner’s claim that the BPH considered inaccurate information is not cognizable in federal 

habeas. See, e.g., Torricellas v. Garcia, 2011 WL 1979398, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (rejecting, 

under Swarthout, claims that BPH failed to consider petitioner's submissions and denied her the 

opportunity to explain false and unreliable evidence where record showed that she was 

represented by counsel and afforded an adequate opportunity to be heard). 

In an abundance of caution, petitioner is granted leave to file an amended petition. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s petition is 

dismissed with leave to file an amended petition within thirty days of the date of this order; 

failure to file an amended petition within that time will result in a recommendation of dismissal of 

this action. 

Dated: June 27, 2016

Gon555.ord

Case 2:16-cv-00555-MCE-KJN Document 7 Filed 06/27/16 Page 2 of 2