Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00805/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00805-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Arnold
Respondent
Crossan Hoover
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 

CROSSAN HOOVER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ERIC ARNOLD, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-0805 GGH 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. 1 Petitioner challenges the 2013 decision by the California Board 

of Parole Hearings (BPH) finding him unsuitable for parole. 

Review of the federal habeas petition and attached exhibits demonstrates that petitioner is 

not entitled to relief on the grounds alleged, thus requiring dismissal of the petition. See Rule 4, 

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“[i]f 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....”). 

In 2011, the United States Supreme Court overruled a line of Ninth Circuit precedent that 

had supported habeas review in California cases involving denials of parole by the BPH and/or 

 

1

 This action is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent to proceed before a 

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Case 2:15-cv-00805-GGH Document 4 Filed 05/05/15 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

the governor. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 131 S.Ct. 859, 861 (2011). The Supreme 

Court held that federal habeas jurisdiction does not extend to review of the evidentiary basis for 

state parole decisions. Because habeas relief is not available for errors of state law, and because 

the Due Process Clause does not require correct application of California's “some evidence” 

standard for denial of parole, federal courts may not intervene in parole decisions as long as 

minimum procedural protections are provided.2 Id. at 861–62. 

The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that after Swarthout, substantive challenges to parole 

decisions are not cognizable in habeas. Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2011). 

The rule is the same when a petitioner challenges a decision by the governor rather than a 

decision of the parole board. Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106, 1108–09 (9th Cir.2011). Under 

Swarthout, this court simply may not consider petitioner's claim that the governor's decision 

violated due process. 

 Petitioner raises one claim in the instant petition, that “[t]he Board of Parole Hearings 

officials have no evidence that petitioner’s release on parole currently poses an unreasonable risk 

of danger if released from prison and is a bare assertion without any facts/evidence to support this 

claim and is contrary to the standard of review as set forth by the California Supreme Court in 

Lawrence.” (ECF No. 1 at 5, 19.) Petitioner requests “a new parole consideration hearing that 

comports with the standard of review as set forth by the California Supreme Court in the case of 

Lawrence and affords petitioner his due process rights and equal protection of the law rights 

under both the United States Constitution and the California State Constitution.” (ECF No. 1 at 

15.) He asserts that he has not used alcohol or drugs in the thirty years he has been imprisoned 

since the age of seventeen, that he has shown his skill as a trusted employee in a positive work 

program, and that he has been and continues to be working toward being a productive member of 

society, as shown by his prison record. 

 Petitioner’s challenge to the factors and sufficiency of the evidence underlying the 

 

2

 Citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979), 

the Supreme Court noted it had found under another state’s similar parole statute that a prisoner 

had “received adequate process” when “allowed an opportunity to be heard” and “provided a 

statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862. 

Case 2:15-cv-00805-GGH Document 4 Filed 05/05/15 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

Board’s decision is not cognizable. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Swarthout, this court 

may not review whether California's “some evidence” standard was correctly applied in 

petitioner's case. Swarthout, 131 S.Ct. at 862–63. Petitioner is only entitled to an opportunity to 

be heard and to be provided a statement of the reasons for the parole denial. Id. at 862. The 

transcript from the hearing indicates that petitioner was represented by counsel and both counsel 

and petitioner were present and had an opportunity to present their arguments and were then 

informed on the record why parole was denied. (ECF No. 1, Ex. A.) The Due Process Clause 

requires no more. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. This petition is dismissed with prejudice; 

2. This action is closed; and 

3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253. 

Dated: May 4, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/hoov0805.parole-scrn 

Case 2:15-cv-00805-GGH Document 4 Filed 05/05/15 Page 3 of 3