Opinion ID: 3179275
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Improper Denial of PTAs

Text: In reviewing the PTA process, the district court first satisfied itself that “the PTA system works at denying petitions that ought to be denied,” and then turned to the question “whether it grants petitions that ought to be granted.” That the district court should so see its task is curious in light of its (correct) understanding that it “does not sit to review individual parole decisions.” Notwithstanding this recognition of its limited review role, the district court went on to consider whether petitions were denied that “ought to [have been] granted.” After reviewing certain case studies, the district court concluded: “[T]he PTA [process] appears to deny advance hearings . . . to those who facially appear to deserve them.” But, to decide who “facially” deserves the grant of a PTA, one must consider the merits of the grounds upon which the PTA is made. The question whether those grounds merit the grant of a PTA—like the question whether to grant parole—is committed to the sole “unfettered discretion” of the Board. In re Vicks, 295 P.3d 863, 882 (Cal. 2013); see Cal. Penal Code § 3041.5(d)(2); see also Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011) (per curiam) (discussing the limits of federal review of a state’s discretionary decisions with respect to the grant or denial of parole). Indeed, as Garner teaches us, in reviewing decisions of state parole authorities for potential Ex Post Facto Clause issues, the question is not whether “discretion has been changed in its exercise” by changes in 22 GILMAN V. BROWN parole procedures, but whether discretion “will not be exercised at all.” 529 U.S. at 254.12 It is undisputed that the Board did exercise its discretion as to each of the PTAs in question, granting some and denying others. We conclude that the district court erred in using its disagreement with the Board’s decisions about which PTAs ought to have been granted or denied as a valid basis for finding an Ex Post Facto Clause violation.13