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

DEXTON THETFORD,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 17-cv-00092-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Dexton Thetford, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se action seeking a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge the Board of Parole Hearings 

(“BPH”) decision finding him not suitable for parole. For the reasons discussed below, the 

petition will be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Thetford was received in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in 

January 1989 after a conviction for first degree murder (Cal. Penal Code § 187). He is currently 

serving a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for the offense. 

A parole hearing was conducted for Thetford on December 3, 2015. At the conclusion of 

the hearing, the BPH panel found him not suitable for parole. The BPH also determined that the 

denial of parole would be a three-year denial, meaning that Thetford will not have a regularly 

scheduled parole suitability hearing for three years after the December 3, 2015 parole hearing. 

Case 4:17-cv-00092-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/31/17 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

Thetford filed habeas petitions in state court to challenge the BPH’s decision. The Los 

Angeles County Superior Court and the California Court of Appeal denied his petitions, and the 

California Supreme Court denied review. Thetford then filed this action. 

DISCUSSION

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A 

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue 

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it 

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 

908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

As grounds for federal habeas relief, Thetford alleges that the BPH violated his due 

process rights by relying on a rules violation report (“RVR”) from 2013, charging him with 

misconduct in prison. Thetford alleges that the RVR had been dismissed, making it improper for 

the BPH to consider the RVR in determining parole suitability. 

However, the Supreme Court has made clear that a prisoner’s federal due process claim 

regarding a denial of parole is limited to whether he received the minimum procedures necessary 

under the federal constitution. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011) (per curiam). 

Specifically, this Court’s inquiry is limited to whether Thetford was given an opportunity to be 

heard, and given a statement of reasons for the denial. Id., citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. 

Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979). Thetford does not dispute that he 

received those two procedural protections (and the record before this court plainly shows that he 

did receive them). Accordingly, Thetford’s allegations fail to state a cognizable claim for federal 

habeas relief. See id.

A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in 

which “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

Case 4:17-cv-00092-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/31/17 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

debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

CONCLUSION

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. Petitioner’s in forma pauperis 

applications are GRANTED. (Docket Nos. 2, 5.) The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the 

file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

3/31/2017

Case 4:17-cv-00092-HSG Document 8 Filed 03/31/17 Page 3 of 3