Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00090/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00090-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Rackley
Respondent
Gustavo Villegas
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GUSTAVO VILLEGAS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RONALD RACKLEY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-0090 KJM CMK P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Petitioner claims his due process rights were violated at a 2014 parole hearing when he 

was denied parole for a period of five years. In relevant part, petitioner claims the 2014 hearing 

was fundamentally unfair because the denial was based in substantial part on an erroneous finding 

that petitioner had been incarcerated for fourteen years at the time of the hearing, when he had in 

fact been incarcerated for twenty-four years. See ECF No. 8 at 2 and citations to the record 

therein. Petitioner seeks relief in the form of an order requiring the Board to conduct a fair 

hearing free of the effect of the Board’s error. ECF No. 8 at 2. 

On May 6, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations recommending 

summary dismissal of the petition. ECF No. 8. By order filed November 17, 2015, this court 

Case 2:15-cv-00090-KJM-CMK Document 15 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

declined to adopt the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 8. Instead, the court directed the 

Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of the petition, the findings and recommendations, and 

petitioner’s objections, on respondent and directed respondent to show cause in writing why 

petitioner is not entitled to a new parole consideration hearing free from the clearly erroneous 

finding in the Board’s decision. ECF No. 8. Respondent has filed a response to the order to show 

cause, ECF No. 10, and petitioner has filed a reply, ECF No. 13. 

Following submission of this matter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit held that unless a state prisoner’s claim lies “at ‘the core of habeas corpus,’ . . . it may not 

be brought in habeas corpus but must be brought, ‘if at all,’ under § 1983.” Nettles v. Grounds, -

___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 4072465, slip op. at 6 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Claims that lie in the 

“core of habeas corpus” are those that, if successful, would “necessarily lead to . . . immediate or 

earlier release from confinement.” Id. at 9. Were petitioner to succeed on his claim, the only 

relief he would obtain through this action is an earlier parole hearing free from the effects of the 

2014 Board panel member’s erroneous statements, which would not necessarily lead to his 

immediate or earlier release on parole. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over this action. 

The Nettles court outlined criteria for converting a habeas corpus petition into a civil 

rights action: “‘If the complaint is amenable to conversion on its face, meaning that it names the 

correct defendants and seeks the correct relief, the court may recharacterize the petition so long as 

it warns the pro se litigant of the consequences of the conversion and provides an opportunity for 

the litigant to withdraw or amend his or her complaint.’” Id. at 10 (quoting Glaus v. Anderson, 

408 F.3d 382, 388 (7th Cir. 2005)). Here, the petition is not amenable to conversion on its face, 

as it names the Warden of Folsom State Prison as the sole respondent and the prayer for relief is 

for “relief to which [petitioner] may be entitled in this proceeding.” ECF No. 1 at 1, 6. 

It appears petitioner has received the relief sought by this action. With the response, 

respondent presents evidence that on June 11, 2015, petitioner petitioned the Board of Parole 

Hearings to advance his next parole hearing. ECF No. 10-1. Petitioner presented several grounds 

in support of his parole board petition, including the error that is the basis of the claim before this 

court. ECF No. 10-1 at 2, 4-5. On July 14, 2015, the petition was approved and his next parole 

Case 2:15-cv-00090-KJM-CMK Document 15 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

suitability hearing was advanced from five years to three years. ECF No. 10-1 at 64. According 

to respondent, this means petitioner will have his next parole hearing in February 2017. ECF 

No. 10 at 6. Petitioner acknowledges the grant, but contends that “[b]ecause of the BPH 

scheduling, there is no guarantee that Petitioner will have his hearing when the Board say [sic] he 

will.” ECF No. 13 at 7-8. The three year deferral is the minimum deferral period for petitioner, 

given his commitment offense of second degree murder. See Gilman v. Brown, 814 F.3d 1007, 

1010 (9th Cir. 2016). Moreover, it is evident from the petition to advance and the Board’s 

decision to grant the petition that (1) the asserted error is now clear in the record before the 

Board; and (2) the 2014 parole denial was based on multiple factors. ECF No. 10-1 at 2, 4-5, 64. 

Thus, it appears petitioner has obtained from his petition to advance all the relief to which he 

might have been entitled in this action. 

For the foregoing reasons, this action will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 11 of 

the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts requires this court to 

“issue or a deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” 

Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Where the petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a 

certificate of appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason 

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling’; and 

(2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). The court must either issue a certificate of 

appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why 

such a certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). For the reasons set forth in this order, 

jurists of reason would not find it debatable that the court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction over 

this petition or that the petition should be converted to a civil rights action. Accordingly, the 

court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-00090-KJM-CMK Document 15 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 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 

4

 For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. This action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; 

 2. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 

DATED: September 28, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00090-KJM-CMK Document 15 Filed 09/28/16 Page 4 of 4