Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02411/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02411-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Parole Hearings
Respondent
Rodney A. Willson
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY A. WILLSON, E-97618,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, 

Respondent(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 16-2411 CRB (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

I.

Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ (BPH) June 10, 2015

decision to deny him parole. Petitioner claims the BPH’s decision does not

comport with due process because: (1) it is not supported by some evidence

demonstrating that he would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public if

released on parole, and (2) it does not reflect individualized consideration of all

relevant factors. 

II.

The Supreme Court has made clear that, in the context of parole, a

prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to California’s receives adequate

process when he is allowed an opportunity to be heard and is provided with a

statement of the reasons why parole was denied. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S.

216, 220 (2011). The Constitution does not require more. Id.

Case 3:16-cv-02411-CRB Document 2 Filed 05/10/16 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

Whether the BPH’s decision was supported by some evidence of

dangerousness is irrelevant in federal habeas. The Supreme Court has made clear

that “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 221. And for the same reason, it is no federal concern

whether California’s “relevant factors” received individualized consideration.

 As the Ninth Circuit has put it, “Cooke was unequivocal in holding that if

an inmate seeking parole receives an opportunity to be heard, a notification of the

reasons as to denial of parole, and access to their records in advance, ‘[t]hat

should . . . be [] the beginning and the end of [the] inquiry into whether [the

inmate] received due process.’” Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 

2011) (quoting Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220). Because petitioner does not question

whether those procedures were provided, and the petition and attachments thereto

show that they indeed were provided, this court’s inquiry “is at its end.” Id.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED. And pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases, a certificate of appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED

because it cannot be said that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

The clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all

pending motions as moot and close the file.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 10, 2016 CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.16\Willson, R.16-2411.dismissal.wpd

Case 3:16-cv-02411-CRB Document 2 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2