Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00375/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00375-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mohammed Abedi
Petitioner
M. Sheppard
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMED ABEDI,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0375 DFL JFM P

vs.

M. SHEPPARD, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an application for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a decision of a panel

of the California Board of Prison Terms (Board) to deny him a parole date. This matter is before

the court on respondents’ motion to dismiss.

Respondents contend that petitioner has no federally protected liberty interest in

parole under California law and that there is no clearly established law of the United States

Supreme Court holding that due process requires that there be “some evidence” to support a

decision to deny parole. Both contentions are precluded by the recent decision of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms,, 461

F.3d 1123 (9 Cir. 2006). th

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00375-JAM -JFM Document 11 Filed 10/30/06 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

2

Accordingly IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondents’ May 5, 2006 motion to dismiss be denied;

2. Respondents be directed to file an answer to the petition within forty-five days

from the date of any order by the district court adopting these findings and recommendations, see

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and to include with the answer any and all

transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the

application. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; and

3. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date

respondents’ answer is filed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are 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).

DATED: October 27, 2006.

12

abed0375.mtd

Case 2:06-cv-00375-JAM -JFM Document 11 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 2