Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01119/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01119-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gonzalo R. Gonzales
Petitioner
Joe Lizarraga
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GONZALO R. GONZALES, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOE LIZARRAGA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-1119 GEB GGH P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the 2014 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 Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011), the Supreme Court held that, 

even if a California prisoner has a state-created liberty interest in parole, the only federal due 

process to which a California federal habeas petitioner challenging the denial of parole is entitled 

is the minimal procedural due process protections set forth in Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska 

Case 2:16-cv-01119-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 07/07/16 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

Penal and Corrections Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979) (i.e., an opportunity to be heard, and a 

statement of reasons for the denial). See Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220. Under the Supreme Court's 

decision in Swarthout, “it is no federal concern...whether California's 'some evidence' rule of 

judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” See 

id. at 220-21. 

In Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit found that the 

Supreme Court's decision in Swarthout applies equally to cases in which the Governor, rather 

than the BPH, found the inmate unsuitable for parole. The Styre court also noted that the federal 

Due Process Clause “does not require that the Governor hold a second suitability hearing before 

reversing a parole decision.” 645 F.3d at 1108. Thus, it appears there is no federal due process 

requirement for a “some evidence” review, whether parole eligibility was denied at the BPH level 

or by the Governor. 

 Petitioner claims that the reasons given in the April 30, 2014 parole denial were “arbitrary 

and capricious” because he has been a model inmate and has successfully rehabilitated. (ECF No. 

1 at 1.) Petitioner alleges that the denial must comply with Cal. Penal Code § 3041, and he 

requests that the court order an evidentiary hearing and require the BPH to show cause for its 

denial. Petitioner claims that parole hearings are a pretense and a farce, and the BPH plans to 

keep him in prison forever because he had claimed imperfect self-defense for second degree 

murder. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Petitioner also alleges that the parole hearing transcript from April 30, 

2014 contains eighty “indiscernables” or inaudibles in the 125 page transcript, rendering it 

insufficient for the court’s review. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) 

 These claims are 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 claims that BPH decision was 

arbitrary and capricious; however, this claim is also contradicted by the record. 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 

Case 2:16-cv-01119-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 07/07/16 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

arguments and were then informed on the record why parole was denied.1 (Ex. C, ECF No. 1 at 

123-248.) The Due Process Clause requires no more. 

 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition be dismissed for the reasons 

discussed above. 

If petitioner files objections, he shall also address if a certificate of appealability should 

issue. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The 

certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy” the requirement. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). 

 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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner 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.” Petitioner is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s 

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: July 6, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/ky:gonz1119.101a 

 

1

 The number of indiscernible and inaudible notations did not hinder the undersigned in 

reviewing the substance of the transcript. 

Case 2:16-cv-01119-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 07/07/16 Page 3 of 3