Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02428/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02428-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Hines
Plaintiff
W.L. Muniz
Defendant

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HINES,

Petitioner,

v.

W. L. MUNIZ, Acting Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-02428-DMR (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS; AND DENYING 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming 

that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with an April 16, 2015 decision by the 

California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) denying him parole. Petitioner specifically claims 

that the decision does not comport with due process because it is not supported by some evidence 

demonstrating that he poses “an unreasonable risk to public safety . . . .” Dkt. 1 at 5-6.

1

 He has 

paid the full filing fee. 

This action has been assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with written consent of all parties, a magistrate judge may 

conduct all proceedings in a case, including entry of judgment.2 Appeal will be directly to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3).

On June 17, 2015, Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Dkt. 

4.

 

1

Page number citations refer to those assigned by the court’s electronic case management filing 

system and not those assigned by Petitioner.

2 A magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the parties to enter dispositive rulings 

and judgments in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in cases such as this one, 

where the petitioner has consented but the respondent has not been served, “all parties have 

consented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),” and a magistrate judge therefore “‘may conduct any 

or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.’” 

Gaddy v. McDonald, No. CV 11-08271 SS, 2011 WL 5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) 

(quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995)); 

Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C 10-04470 LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 

15, 2011)); cf. Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge 

had jurisdiction to dismiss action as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants 

had not yet been served and therefore were not parties). 

Case 4:15-cv-02428-DMR Document 5 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A prisoner subject to California’s parole statute 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). Petitioner’s allegations in the petition 

show he received at least this amount of process. Dkt. 1 at 5-6. The Constitution does not require 

more. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220.

Whether the Board’s decision was supported by some evidence of current 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. 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Pursuant to 

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of appealability 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). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. 

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent, terminate all pending 

motions, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2015

______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-02428-DMR Document 5 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HINES,

Plaintiff,

v.

W.L. MUNIZ,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:15-cv-02428-DMR 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 21, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Michael Hines ID: E-48946

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960 

Dated: July 21, 2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable DONNA M. RYU

Case 4:15-cv-02428-DMR Document 5 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 3