Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00623/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00623-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert W. Fox
Respondent
Toney Martinez
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

TONEY MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT W. FOX,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-0623 CKD P

ORDER

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee and has consented to have 

all matters in this action before a United State Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 

petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review. 

Petitioner is serving a sentence of 15 years-to-life imposed in 1992 for second degree 

murder. He challenges 2014 parole hearing proceedings. 

In “Claim One,” petitioner challenges the denial of parole. With respect to the denial of 

parole, petitioner does have a liberty interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, (2011). However, the procedural 

protections which must be afforded with respect to the liberty interest implicated are minimal; the 

Case 2:16-cv-00623-CKD Document 8 Filed 04/19/16 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

AConstitution does not require more@ than Aan opportunity to be heard@ at a parole hearing and that 

the potential parolee be Aprovided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.@ Id. at 220. 

Petitioner does not allege he was denied either of these protections. Accordingly, he fails to 

present any cognizable challenge under the Due Process Clause with respect to his 2014 parole 

hearing. 

Petitioner also seems to argue that his being denied parole amounts to cruel and unusual 

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. However, a discretionary denial of parole 

merely continues punishment already imposed for the underlying offense and does not by itself 

implicate the Eighth Amendment. See Lustgarden v. Gunter, 966 F.2d 552, 555 (10th Cir. 1992). 

Petitioner does not challenge the imposition of his sentence of 15 years-to-life, and he most likely 

would be time barred from doing so anyway, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).1

Finally, the court notes that under the heading “Claim One,” petitioner asserts that at his 

2014 hearing, the board told petitioner that he had not adequately addressed issues related to

substance abuse and ordered petitioner to attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics 

Anonymous (NA). Petitioner asserts this violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against

government established religion. Generally speaking, the only relief which can be afforded in a 

habeas proceeding is immediate or speedier release. See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 535 n. 

13 (2011). Since there is nothing before the court suggesting petitioner would be released on 

parole if the court were to order that petitioner cannot be required to attend AA and NA, 

petitioner’s claim must be brought in an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

rather than in a habeas petition. Petitioner is cautioned that if he wishes to pursue his 

Establishment Clause claim in a § 1983 action, he must pay the $350 filing fee, although he will 

be permitted to pay the fee in installments. 

/////

 

1

 Even if petitioner challenged the imposition of his sentence under the Eighth Amendment, it is 

almost impossible that he would succeed as successful challenges to the proportionality of a 

particular sentence under the Eighth Amendment are “exceedingly rare,” Solem v. Helm, 463 

U.S. 277, 289-90 (1983) and no court has ever found that a sentence of 15 years-to-life imposed 

for second degree murder in California amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. 

Case 2:16-cv-00623-CKD Document 8 Filed 04/19/16 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

In “Claim Two,” petitioner takes issue with the fact that at his 2014 parole hearing, the 

parole board held that petitioner would not have another parole hearing until 2019. Petitioner 

makes the familiar argument that by delaying petitioner’s parole hearing, the board violated the 

Constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto laws assuming the delay is attributable to the 

passage of the “Victims= Bill of Rights Act” or “Marsy’s Law” in 2008. However, even under the 

law in effect at the time petitioner was sentenced and prior to the enactment of “Marsy’s “Law,”

the parole board had the authority to order that a follow-up parole hearing not occur for five 

years. Cal. Penal Code ' 3041.5(b)(2) (2008). Therefore, petitioner has no ex post facto claim

regarding the application of “Marsy’s Law.”

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is clear that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. 

Therefore, petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus will be summarily dismissed.2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed;

2. This case is closed; and

3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253.

Dated: April 19, 2016

1/kly

mart0623.dis

 

2

 In his petition, petitioner identifies a third claim: “State Court’s Decision Denying Writ Was 

Contrary To And Unreasonable Application Of Clearly Federal Law.” This is not a claim, but an 

argument as to why the court is not precluded under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) from granting relief on 

his petitioner’s other claims. 

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00623-CKD Document 8 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 3