N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

DEM IAN TR EVOR

O’ KEEFFE, Pla intiff-Appe lla nt,

v. KAR LA ER

KENB R EC HER , De fe nda

nt-Appe lle e
. No. 11-17558
D.C . No. 2:04-c v-01695-GGH

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia G re g o ry G. Hollows, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 10, 2014 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : N.R . SM ITH a

nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd PIER SOL, Se nior Distric t Judge

. **
De m ia n Tre vor O’ Ke e ffe a

ppe a ls from sum

m a ry judgm e nt gra nte d to C a rla Erke nbre c he r. Erke nbre c he r wa s O’ Ke e ffe ’ s pa role offic e r who a lle ge d ly fa ile d to



# F IL ED

APR 08 2015

M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble La wre nc e L. Pie rsol, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of South Da kota , sitting by de signa

tion.give O’ Ke e ffe notic e o f his p a role re te ntion while he wa s be ing s upe rvise d in Ne va da

. This a lle ge d fa i lu r e cau s e d O’ Ke e ffe to not i nitia lly a ppe a l his pa

role re te ntion.
O’ Ke e ffe wa s subse que ntly a dvise d of h i s pa role re te nti o n (whe n he wa s ba c k in prison) a n d wa s a llowe d the right to a ppe a l tha t re t e ntion. O’ K e e ffe di d not the n

a ppe a l the re te n t ion a nd initia te d this 42 U.S.C

. § 1983 la wsuit in 2004 c l a im ing d

ue
proc e s s viola

tions for the c la im e d initia l fa ilure of notific a tion.
Pre vious proc e e d i n gs in this c a se prior to re m a nd a re sta t e d i n O’K

e e ffe v
. Rimme r, e t al. , N o. 07-15831, 328 Fe d. Appx. 5 6 3 ( 9th C ir. July 7, 2009) (m e m ora ndum

of disposition). On re m a n d, Erke nbre c he r, the re m a ining De fe nda nt,

a ga in m ove d for s u m m ar y judgm e nt. T he M a gistra te J udge a gre e d tha t no libe rty inte re s t w a s c re a te d by C a lifornia Pe na l C ode Se c tion 3001. Ac c o rdingly , h e de nie d Pla i ntiff’ s m otion for sum m a ry judgm e nt a

nd gra n te d De fe nda

n t’ s c ross m o tion for

sum m a ry judgm e nt. This a

ppe a l followe d. The p roc e ss for re ta ining a n individua l on pa role in C a lifornia doe s not provide the individua l with the r i g h t t o a tte nd the he a ring or othe rwise be he a rd. C a l. C o de
R e gs.tit. 15, § 2535(c ) (2015). Inste a d, the B oa rd of Prison Te rm s (“ B PT” ) m a ke s its de te rm i na tion inde pe nde ntly a nd the n m ust s ubse quently se nd n otic e of its de te rm i na tion to the pa

role e
. C a l. Pe n a l C ode § 3001(a )(3). The pa role e the n ha s the right to a

ppe a l the B PT’ s de c ision. C a l. C o de R e gs.tit

. 15, § 2535(c ) (2015).

2O’ Ke e ffe a rgue s tha t he wa s de nie d due proc e ss be c a use he a lle ge d ly d id not re c e ive notic e of his re te ntion on pa role a nd a s a

re sult wa s not a

ble to m a ke a

tim e ly a ppe a l of the re te ntion.
M ultiple C a lifornia c a se s ha ve a d dre sse d situa tion s w h er e notic e of pa role

re te ntion wa s not prope rly se nt to a pa role e
. Se e P e ople v
. J

a c k , 70 C a l

. R

ptr. 2d 676,
678 (C a l. C t. App. 1997); In re R uzic k a , 281 C a l. R

p tr. 435, 4 38 (C a l. C t

. App. 1991).
I n e a c h of the C a lifornia c a se s , the C a l ifornia C ourt of Appe a l c onc lud ed t h at t h e fa ilure to se nd notic e o f the B PT’ s de te rm ina tion wa s a due proc e ss viola tion. Se e ,

e .g. , J ac k , 7 0 C a l. R

ptr. 2d a t 6 7 8-79. Howe v e r, a fte r finding a due proc e ss viola tion, the C a l ifornia

C ourt of Appe a l e xpla ine d: Appe lla nt ha d no right to pa

rtic ipa t e in t

h e i n it i a l B PT proc e e d ing to de te rm ine whe the r h is pa role would be e xte nde d

. T h u s , t ha t de c ision a nd a ppe lla nt’ s re s ulting pa

role sta tus we re va lid a nd e ffe c tive unle ss se t a side o n a dm inistra

tive a ppe a l of the de te rm ina tio n
. Ac c ordingly , the a ppropria t e re m e dy now is to pla c e a ppe lla nt in t h e p os ition h e would ha ve be e n h a d he be e n a c c orde d due proc e ss. W e the re fore re m a nd to a llow the tria l c ourt to m odify its ruling by orde ring the C DC to tra nsm it to a ppe lla n t a c opy of the writte n pa role re te ntion re c ord so tha t he m a y ha ve the opportunity to pursue his right of a ppe a l. Id. a t 679 (footnote s om itte d). Although C a lifornia a

ppe lla t e c ourt c a se s do not bind our c ourt, t he Supre m e C ourt, in Parratt v
. Tay lor, 4 51 U.S. 5 27, 543-44 (1981), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Danie ls v
. W

illiams, 474 U.S. 3 27 (1986), h a s de te rm ine d tha t, w h en a p l ai n tiff

3c la im s a d e priva tion of a libe rty or prope rty inte re s t c a use d by a n una

uthoriz e d a c t by

a sta t e a c tor, the pla i ntiff c a nnot sta te a c la im whe n the sta

te provide s a n a de qua te post-de priva

tion re m e dy

. S

e e also Hudson v
. Palme r , 46 8 U.S. 517, 533 (1984),

ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Danie ls v
. W illiams, 474 U .S. 327 (1986). “ W ha te ve r libe rty inte re st e x i sts is, o f c ourse , a state inte re s t c re a te d by C a lifornia la w. The re is

no right unde r the Fe de ra l C onstitution to be c onditiona lly r ele a se d be fore the

e xpira tion of a va lid se nte nc e , a nd the Sta te s a re unde r no duty t o offe r pa role to the ir prisone rs.” Sw arthout v
. C ook e , 562 U .S. 216, 220 (20 1 1) ( ci t i n g Gre e nholtz v
. Inmate s of N e b. Pe nal & C

orr. C omple x , 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979)).
In t his c a se , it is undispute d tha t the sta te subse q ue ntly provide d O’ Ke e ffe with

a c opy of the B PT’ s pa

role re te ntion de te rm ina tion a nd a l lowe d hi m t o ap pe a l, the

e xa c t re m e dy p rovide d unde r C a lifornia la w. O ’ Ke e ffe a rgue s tha t t h e r em edy wa s
not a de qua te b e c a

u s e he did not re c e ive notic e of the re te ntion de te rm ina tion until te n

m onths a fte r he ha d be e n re turne d to p r i s o n. Although not binding upon this c ourt,

we note tha t pa

role e s in C a lifornia c a se s ha ve h a d t o wa i t m uc h longe r for re l ie f. Se e

,

e .g. , In re Ruzic k

a , 2 81 C a l. R

ptr. a t 436-37 (2 y e a rs). O ’ K e e ffe r eco g n iz e s tha t

a lthough Sw arthout he ld tha t fe de ra l c ourts should de fe r to s ta te c ourts on que stions of whe the r sta

te la w wa s prope rly a

p plie d, the c a se a lso he ld tha t suc h a de te rm ina tion ha d no be a

ring on whe the r due proc e ss w a s s a tisfie d. W e h o l d tha t the re m e dy

4p r o vide d by C a lifornia i n this c a se , unde r the se fa c t s, w a s a n a de qua te p o s t

de priva tion re m e d

y . The re fore , a s sum ing, without de c iding, tha t O ’ K e e ffe ’ s d ue
proc e s s rights we re vio la te d, he none the le ss re c e ive d the a ppropria te s ta te re m e dy

. Unde r t he fa c ts of this c a se , due proc e ss wa s sa tisfie d by the re m e d y provide d.
O’ Ke e ffe c hose to not a

va il him se lf of t

he post-de priva

tion re m e dy

. Thus, O’ Ke e ffe

c a nnot sta te a c la im unde r Parratt

. The dism issa l of O’ K e e ffe ’ s c l a im s is a ffirm e d.

5