Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00309/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00309-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Ledesma
Petitioner
John Marshall
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 - 08cv309

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE LEDESMA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08 CV 309 JM (CAB)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR

FURTHER ORDER

Doc. No. 25

vs.

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,

Respondent.

On August 3, 2009, this court granted Petitioner George Ledesma’s (“Ledesma”) petition for

writ of habeas corpus and ordered Responded John Marshall to immediately release Ledesma from

custody. (Doc. No. 16). Ledesma’s release was briefly stayed to give the Ninth Circuit the opportunity

to grant a longer stay pending appeal. (Doc. No. 21). The Ninth Circuit declined to stay Ledesma’s

release. Therefore, Ledesma was released on September 19, 2009. (See Doc. No. 25). 

On December 3, 2009, Ledesma attended a hearing before the Board of Parole Hearings

(“BPH”) to set his term, parole date, and parole discharge date. (Doc. No. 25, hereinafter “Request,”

¶ 5). Ledesma parole release date was not set at the hearing, although Respondent now contends that

the appropriate parole release date is April 1, 2010. (Doc. No. 26). Ledesma argues that this court’s

prior order requires that he be released from parole immediately. (Request ¶ 8). 

This court’s prior order requires that 

in determining Ledesma’s parole period, the BPH shall credit him with custodial time

served since the release date he would have received on a 2006 finding of suitability,

Case 1:08-cv-00309-JTM-CAB Document 28 Filed 01/08/10 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 - 08cv309

or the date such a finding would have become final pursuant to CAL. PEN. CODE

§ 3041(b) and 3041.2(a), whichever is later.

(Doc. No. 16 at 42). Had Ledesma been properly found suitable on November 2, 2006, Ledesma’s

finding of suitability would have become final 150 days later on April 1, 2007. See CAL. PEN. CODE

§§ 3041(b), 3041.2(a). The parties do not dispute that the BPH appropriately applied a three-year

parole term to Ledesma pursuant to Penal Code § 3000. Therefore, Ledesma parole term properly

extends to April 1, 2010, and the BPH is not required to release him from parole until that time. 

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s request for an order directing his immediate release from

parole is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2010

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-00309-JTM-CAB Document 28 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2