Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01463/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01463-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raythel Fisher
Respondent
Jason Alan Page
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

JASON ALAN PAGE,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN RAYTHEL FISHER, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01463-AWI-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS PETITION 

OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

ECF No. 7

Petitioner Jason Alan Page, a state prisoner without counsel, petitioned for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Before us is respondents’ motion to dismiss 

the petition for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim. ECF No. 7. For the reasons stated 

below, we recommend that the court grant petitioner’s motion to dismiss.

Background

In 1995, petitioner was sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison for murder, with a 

sentence enhancement of two years for the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. ECF 

No. 1 at 5.1 Petitioner seeks relief from a 2018 Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) denial of 

 

1 We have reviewed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s inmate locator 

listing for the petitioner and take judicial notice of it per Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of 

Evidence. See California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Inmate Locator, 

https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/ (search “Search for Inmate” for “Jason Page”). Petitioner 

remains incarcerated, was again denied parole on January 8, 2020, and will have his next parole 

Case 1:19-cv-01463-AWI-HBK Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 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

parole. See generally ECF No. 1. Specifically, petitioner seeks a review of the substantive 

findings of BPH, arguing that it: (1) failed to consider relevant mitigating factors in determining 

his suitability for parole, (2) relied on mischaracterizations of the evidence and conjecture, and 

(3) failed to support the parole denial with evidence that petitioner is dangerous. See id. at 2. In 

their motion to dismiss, respondents argue that the petition should be dismissed because claims 

seeking substantive review of state parole hearing decisions are not cognizable on federal habeas 

review. See ECF No. 7 at 3.

Discussion 

No habeas rule explicitly applies to motions to dismiss and there is some doubt as to what 

legal framework applies to such motions. See Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F. Supp. 1189, 1194 (E.D. 

Cal. 1982) (“Motion practice in habeas corpus is not specifically provided for in the [Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases] but must be inferred from their structure and the Advisory 

Committee Notes.”). Courts in this district have often analyzed motions to dismiss in the habeas 

context under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and we take that approach here. 

See, e.g., Ram v. Sacramento Cty., No. 2:15-cv-2074-WBS-DB, 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 85123 at 

*4 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2017). Rule 4 establishes what is commonly known as a “screening” 

procedure for habeas petitions. See O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); 

Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 269 n.14 (1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

81(a)(4)(A). Under Rule 4, we evaluate whether it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not 

entitled to relief—and if so we dismiss the petition. 

Here, petitioner argues that BPH, in denying him parole, wrongfully relied on certain 

evidence and failed to consider fully some potentially-relevant evidence. ECF No. 1 at 2. 

Petitioner does not claim that the procedures used during the hearing were inadequate, but rather 

that the substantive findings of BPH were erroneous considering California’s parole hearing 

evidentiary standard.

2

 Federal habeas relief is only available for violations of the constitution, 

 

hearing in January 2023. 

2 Under California law, the standard of review governing determinations of suitability for parole 

is properly characterized as whether “some evidence” supports the conclusion that the inmate is 

unsuitable for parole because he is currently dangerous. See Cal. Pen. Code § 3041(b) (West 

Case 1:19-cv-01463-AWI-HBK Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 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

federal law or treaties. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). “There is no right under the Federal 

Constitution to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States 

are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners.” See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 

(2011). To the extent petitioner claims only that BPH’s decision was a violation of state law, we 

cannot grant him relief; federal habeas relief is not available for alleged violations of state law. 

See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991). It is beyond the purview of this court to convert 

California’s “some evidence” rule into a federal requirement. See Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220-22

(Federal review of a state parole hearing is limited to the “process [petitioner] received, not 

whether the state court decided the case correctly.”). Therefore, we can neither review the

sufficiency of evidence presented nor the hearing officer’s substantive findings in light of that 

evidence. Because petitioner’s claim is not cognizable under federal habeas review, it plainly 

appears that petitioner is not entitled to relief. Therefore, we recommend that respondents’ 

motion to dismiss be granted.3

Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 

court’s dismissal of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 

Cases requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final 

order adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 

F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner 

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

 

2018).

3 Even if petitioner had claimed that the procedures afforded him during the BPH hearing were 

inadequate, he still would be unable to obtain habeas relief. In the context of state parole 

hearings, federal habeas review is limited to ensuring state prisoners are afforded “minimal” due 

process—that is, an opportunity to be heard and statement of the reasons for denial. See 

Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220 (citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional 

Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979)). Here, petitioner was present with counsel for all proceedings, 

was permitted to speak on his behalf, and was given detailed reasons for his denial of parole. See 

ECF No. 1 at 196-246; ECF No. 1-1 at 1-67. The constitution “does not require more.” 

Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220 (citing Greenholtz, 422 U.S. at 16). 

Case 1:19-cv-01463-AWI-HBK Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 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

This standard requires the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district 

court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented 

are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Thus, we decline to issue a certificate of 

appealability.

Findings and Recommendations

For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court grant defendant’s motion to 

dismiss, ECF No. 7, dismiss the case, and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. These 

findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the case 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within thirty days of the service of the 

findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and 

recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding 

district judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

. 

Case 1:19-cv-01463-AWI-HBK Document 12 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 4