Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06885/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06885-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Kernan
Defendant
Mario Torres
Plaintiff

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARIO TORRES, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SCOTT KERNAN, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 19-cv-06885-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Re: Dkt. No. 2 

Petitioner, a former California prisoner and parolee, filed a pro se petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His parole violation finding occurred in 

Contra Costa County, which is in this district, so venue is proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2241(d). He has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner was released from custody from state prison on November 14, 2018. 

Case No. 19-6885, Docket No. 1 at 12. Petitioner filed a habeas petition regarding that 

conviction that was denied on the merits on March 8, 2019. See Torres v. Hatton, Case 

No. 17-cv-4332 PJH. With respect to that prior conviction from Case No. 17-4332, 

petitioner pleaded guilty to several counts and was sentenced to six years. Case No. 17-

4332, Docket No. 35 at 159-65.1

 On the written waiver and plea form signed by 

petitioner, he initialed the statement indicating that he understood that his prison 

sentence would be followed by being on parole or post release community supervision. 

Case No. 17-4332, Docket No. 1-7 at 14, 16. During the plea allocution, the trial judge 

 

1 A court may take judicial notice of public records. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 

668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Case 4:19-cv-06885-PJH Document 3 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 4
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 Californi

a

indicated that if convicted of a serious violent felony, petitioner would be placed on parole 

when his sentence was completed and be required to follow certain terms and conditions. 

Case No. 17-4332, Docket No. 35 at 164. The prosecutor had previously indicated that 

the state term would be six years with 85% percent to be served because it was a violent 

felony. Id. at 156. 

On November 9, 2018, several days before petitioner was released from custody, 

he was provided a notice and conditions of his parole. Case No. 19-6885, Docket No. 1 

at 22-24. Petitioner refused to sign the notice and conditions. Id. at 22-24. On January 

17, 2019, petitioner was arrested for violating the conditions of parole. Id. at 12, 16. On 

February 28, 2019, petitioner was found to have violated parole for failing to report to the 

parole office and sentenced to 180 days. Id. at 48. 

DISCUSSION 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet 

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An 

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody 

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to 

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the 

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 

1970)). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

As grounds for federal habeas relief petitioner argues that his parole violation is 

invalid because he was not on parole. Case No. 19-6885, Docket No. 1 at 8. Moreover, 

Case 4:19-cv-06885-PJH Document 3 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

he would like this court to acknowledge that he was not on parole. Id. Petitioner 

specifically argues he was not on parole because he refused to sign the parole papers 

when he was released from prison. Id. at 12, 17. He contends that the parole papers 

were a contract and were not binding because he did not sign them. Id. at 17. He 

alleges that he was arrested in retaliation for refusing to sign the documents. Id. 

Assuming that petitioner has presented a cognizable claim, he is still not entitled to 

relief. Petitioner presented this claim to the California state courts. The Superior Court 

for Contra Costa County issued a reasoned opinion and the California Supreme Court 

denied his petition without comment or citation. Id. at 47; California Supreme Court Case 

No. S257313. The superior court stated: 

Parole is not a contract that requires a prisoner’s consent. 

Rather, it is a mandatory part of his or her state prison 

sentence. (Pen. Code § 3000, [“A sentence resulting in 

imprisonment in the state prison pursuant to Section 1168 or 

1170 shall include a period of parole supervision or postrelease 

community supervision,”].) Petitioner’s argument that he never 

agreed to be placed on parole lacks merit as his consent or 

agreement is irrelevant. Parole supervision is mandated under 

California law as part of his state prison sentence. Petitioner 

was advised of the term of parole supervision during his 

sentencing hearing... 

Case No. 19-6885, Docket No. 1 at 8. 

The state courts found that pursuant to California law parole was a mandatory part 

of petitioner’s sentence and did not require his consent or signature. As noted by the 

state court and above, petitioner was notified of the parole requirement when he pled 

guilty and he acknowledged it. Petitioner was also aware that he would be subject to 

parole conditions when he was released from prison but chose not to sign the document 

and more importantly chose not to abide by the conditions. Petitioner has presented a 

state law claim that has already been ruled on by the state courts and this court cannot 

overrule those decisions. Federal habeas relief is not available for an alleged state law 

error. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991) (a federal habeas court cannot 

reexamine a state court's interpretation and application of state law). 

Case 4:19-cv-06885-PJH Document 3 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

CONCLUSION 

1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED.

2. The petition is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above. Because

reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability 

(“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (standard for 

COA). The clerk shall close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 22, 2020 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

Case 4:19-cv-06885-PJH Document 3 Filed 01/22/20 Page 4 of 4