This disposit ion is not appropriate f or publication and is not pre cedent * except as provided by

9th Cir. R. 36-3. Af ter o ral argument, wevac ate d a nd de ferre d s ub mis sio n o f t

his c a se ** pendingdecision of the California SupremeCourt in two cases, In re Lawrence , 190 P.3d 535 (Cal. 2008) a

nd In reSh ap uti

s, 190 P.3d 573 (Cal. 2008), and a waited this Court’s en banc de cision in Ha

ywar d v. M ar sh all , 603 F.3d 546 ( 9th Cir. 2010)(en ba nc). The Honorable Ronald B . L eighton, United States District Judg e for the *** Western District of Washington, sitt ing by designation. NO T F OR P UB L I CA T I ON UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT E L I J AH C L AY,

Pet i t i oner- A ppel l ee, v . A . P. K A N E , W ar den,

R e sp o n d e n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 07- 55377 D. C. No . CV - 0 4 - 8 6 6 3 - VAP M E M OR ANDUM *

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e C e n tra l D istric t o f C a lifo rn ia V i r gi ni a A . Phi l l i ps , D i s tr i ctJ udge, Pr es i di ng A r gued and Submi t t ed February7, 2008 Subm i s s i on V aca t ed and D efe rr ed A pr i l 18, 2008 **

R es ubm i t t ed J une 18, 2010 P a sa d e n a , C a lifo rn ia B efor e: PR E G E R SO N and W A R D L A W , C i r cui tJ udges , and L E I G H T O N , D i s tr i ctJ udge.

*** 

# FI LED JU N 18 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSOn July 1, 2005, California c reated the B oard of Parole He aring s to replac e the 1 Boa rd of Prison Ter

ms. Cal. Penal Code § 5075(a) .

-2- T he C al i forni a B oar d of Pr i s on T erm s ( “B oar d”) found s t at e pr i s oner 1 E li jah C laysu it ab le fo r pa role. T h en -G o v ern o r G rayD av is r ev erse d the B o ard ’s deci s i on. C l aypet i t i oned the C al i forni a s t at e court s fora w r i tof habe as corpus ch all en g ing the G o v ern o r’s de cisi o n . T h e L o s A n g eles S u p erior C o u rt , the C o u rt of A ppeal s , and the C al i forni a Supr eme C our tal l deni ed the pet i t i on i n turn. C l ay then fil ed a p eti ti o n fo r w ri t of h ab ea s co rpu s in f

ed era l cou rt . T h e d istri ct co u rt g ra n te d th e w ri t a n d th e s ta te n o w a p p e a ls th a t d e c is io n . WE A F F I R M. T he B oar d found thatC l ayw oul d notpos e an unr eas onabl e r i s k of dange r t o s oci etyora thr eatt o publ i c s afe tyi f r el eas ed fr om pr i s on, not i ng thata pr i s on ps y chol ogi s tfound that“hi s vi ol ence pot ent i al i s cons i der ed t o be no more than thatof the ave r age c i t i zen i n the comm uni ty . ” I tal s o found thatC l ays how ed rem orse and took respon si bil i tyfor the d eat h o f t he v i ct i m . T he B oard al so f a v o ra b lyn o ted C lay’s e x ten siv e p a rticip a tio n in e d u c a tio n a l an d th e ra p e u tic pr ogr ams w hi l e i n pr i s on. T he B oar d gr ant ed par ol e s ubj ectt o r evi ew bythe G o v e rn o r. See C al. C o n st. art. V , § 8 (b); C al. P en al C o d e § 3 0 4 1 . 2 (a). In re v e rs in g th e B o a rd ’s d e c is io n , th e G o v e rn o r r e lie d o n f o u r m a in f

a c to rs . Fi r s t , he found that“the gr avi tyof M r . C l ay ’ s cr i m e i s al one, s uffi ci entt o concl ude thathe i s nots ui t abl e forr el eas e atthi s t i m e. ” Second, he not ed that“M r . C l ayhas nots uffi ci ent l ypart i ci pat ed i n s el f- hel p i n or dert o fur therdel ve i nt o the ca us at i ve-3-

f a c to rs f o r h is p a rticip a tio n in th e life c rim e ” a n d “ th a t u n til f u rth e r p ro g re ss is m ade, M r . C l aycont i nues t o be unpr edi ct abl e and a thr eatt o other s . ” [ Id . ] T hi r d, h e c ri ti cize d the B o ard fo r giv ing “ina d eq u ate c o n side rati o n to M r. C lay ’s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t ory . ” [ I d. ] Fi nall y , he sai d thatC l ay ’s parol e plans – s peci fi cal l ythe fa ctthathe “ha s a j ob offe ri n San D i ego, y ethi s offe rof hous i ng is in L o s A n g e le s ” – w e re u n re a lis tic . [ I d. ] T he Los A ngel es C ountySuper i orC our tdeni ed C l ay ’ s habea s pet i t i on, concl udi ng thatthe G overnor ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e s uppor t ed by“s om e evi dence ” and th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a l a n d C a lif

o rn ia S u p re m e C o u rt s u m m a ri ly d e n ie d th e p e titio n . A s a m a tter o f

C a lifo rn ia s tate law , “s o m e e v id e n c e ” o f f u tu re d a n g e ro u sn e ss is e s s e n tia l f

o r d e n ia l o f

p a ro le . H

a y w a rdv . M

a rs h a ll , 603 F. 3d at562 ( ci t i ng In re Law r ence , 190 P. 3d 535, 549 ( C al . 2008) and In re Sh a p u tis , 190 P. 3d 573, 582 (C al. 2 0 0 8 )). If the G ov ernor r el i es on the agg ravat ed n ature of the com m i t m ent offense t o denypar ol e, as he di d her e, he maydo s o onl yi f “the r ecor d al s o es t abl i s hes thats om ethi ng i n t he pr i s oner ’ s pr e- orpos t - i ncar cer at i on hi s t ory , orhi s orher c u rre n t d e m e a n o r a n d m e n tal s tate ” re late d to th e c o m m itm e n t o f f e n se is “pr obat i ve . . . of a c ont i nui ng thr eatt o publ i c s afe ty . ” I n r e Law r ence , 190 P. 3d at 55 5. H ere, there i s no ev i den ce i n the r ecord t hat w ou l d indi cat e t hat C l aypo ses a d a n g e r to th e c o m m u n ityif re lea se d . H e c o m m itt e d th e o f f e n se w h ile in h is tw ent i es i n 1976 and i n 1978 w as s ent ence d t o a t erm of s even y ear s t o l i fe. C l ay-4-

is n o w o v e r six tyy e a rs o ld . C lay’s c rim in a l h isto ryis u n re m a rk a b le, c o n sis ts mo s t l yo f

mi s d e me a n o ro f

f e n s e s a n d th e f

tc r i me s , a n d i s o v e rf

o r tyy e a r s o l d . He has notr ece i ved anydi s ci pl i naryi nfr act i ons i n pr i s on s i nce 1990. Pr i s on p s y c h ia tr is ts a n d p s y c h o lo g is ts u n a n im o u s ly f o u n d C la ys u ita b le f

o r p a ro le . T he r emai ni ng fac t or s r el i ed on bythe G overnor– C l ay ’ s al l eged ne ed for part i ci pat i on i n even mor e ther apeut i c pr ogr amm i ng and the “unr eal i s t i c” na tur e of hi s par ol e pl ans – ar e al s o pl ai nl ycontr adi ct ed bythe r ecor d. C l ayhas part i ci pat ed ext ens i vel yi n t her apeut i c and e ducat i onal pr ogr amm i ng, and the pr i s on ps y chol ogi s tfound thatC l aypr es ent ed no more of a thr eatt o the publ i c than the av era g e c it izen . F u rth er, C layh as se cu red a job an d h o u sing in S o u thern C al i forni a and ha s devel oped hi s m arket abl e s ki l l s w hi l e i ncar cer at ed. T he Los A ngel es C ountySuper i orC our t ’ s deci s i on deny i ng C l ay ’ s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus uphol di ng the G overnor ’ s deci s i on w as an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of C al i forni a’ s “s om e evi dence ” rul e and w as an u n re a s o n a b le d e te rm in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p re s e n te d . H ayw ard , 6 0 3 F . 3 d at 56 2 -63 ; 28 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(1 ) an d (2). T he d i stri ctcou rt ’s grantof the w ri ti s AF F I RM ED .