Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01659/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01659-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Virginia Grafton
Petitioner
Debra Jacquez
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGINIA GRAFTON, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S 05-1659 LKK GGH P

vs.

DEBRA JACQUEZ,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this application

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 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 General Order No. 262.

On October 30, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Petitioner challenges the 2004 decision by the California Board of Parole

Hearings (BPH) finding her unsuitable for parole. In the objections, petitioner contends that the

magistrate judge failed to address two of her claims, i.e. the claims raised at pages 18 and 19 of

the petition. The magistrate judge found that these claims were encompassed by the claim

Case 2:05-cv-01659-LKK -GGH Document 22 Filed 12/18/07 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

2

alleging insufficient evidence to support the finding that petitioner was unsuitable. 

The claim raised at page 18 argued that the BPH failed to articulate a nexus

between any of the findings for its decision and the risk of danger to public safety now posed by

petitioner. The claim raised at page 19 argues that an indeterminable denial of parole based on

static factors converts her sentence to life without any possibility of parole. These claims are

encompassed by petitioner’s sufficiency of the evidence claim and the relevant legal standards

cited by the magistrate judge, including Irons v. Carey, No. 05-15275, 2007 WL 2027359 (9th

Cir. July 13, 2007)(if petitioner has served less than minimum term, as in the instant case, the

BPH’s reliance on factors relating to the crime constituted “some evidence” absent extraordinary

circumstances). The claims raised at pages 18 and 19 are further argument in support of the

insufficiency of the evidence claim rather than separate legal claims.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 30, 2007, are adopted in full;

and

2. The petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

DATED: December 14, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01659-LKK -GGH Document 22 Filed 12/18/07 Page 2 of 2