Legal Document

Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GARY SWARTHOUT, WARDEN v. DAMON COOKE MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ELIJAH CLAY ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 10–333. Decided January 24, 2011 PER CURIAM. I California’s parole statute provides that the Board of Prison Terms “shall set a release date unless it determines . consideration public safety requires more lengthy period incarceration.” Cal. Penal Code Ann. §3041(b) (West Supp. 2010). If denies parole, prisoner can seek judicial review in state habeas petition. The California Supreme Court has explained “the standard properly is characterized as whether ‘some evidence’ supports conclusion inmate unsuitable for because he or she currently dangerous.” In re Lawrence, 44 4th 1181, 1191, 190 P.3d 535, 539 (2008). See also Shaputis, 1241, 1253–1254, 573, 580 (2008); Rosen krantz, 29 616, 625–626, 59 174, 183 (2002). A Respondent Damon Cooke was convicted attempted first-degree murder 1991, and court sen tenced him to an indeterminate term seven years life prison with possibility parole. November 2002, board determined not yet suitable basing its decision on “especially cruel callous manner” his commitment offense, App. Pet. 2 SWARTHOUT Cert. 50a; failure participate fully rehabilita tive programs; develop marketable skills; three incidents misconduct while prison. admitted had received favorable psy chological report, but dismissed report credi ble included several inconsistent erroneous statements. filed petition writ corpus State Superior Court. denied “The record indicates,” said, “that there some evidence, including certainly limited support board’s denial.” Id., at 42a. subse quently Appeal direct by Both were denied. October 2004, federal pursuant 28 U.S. C. §2254 challenging determination. District Ninth Circuit reversed, holding Cali fornia’s created liberty interest protected Due Process Clause, “California’s requirement” “component” feder ally interest. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206, 1213 (2010). It then concluded made “unreasonable determination facts light evidence” under §2254(d)(2) finding any evidence all would pose threat if released. 1215. B Elijah Clay 1978, sentenced imprisonment 2003, found Governor exercised authority case 3 Const., Art. 5, §8(b); §3041.2 2000). cited gravity Clay’s crime; extensive criminal history, which reflected culmi nation crime,” 116a; self-help unrealistic plans employment housing after being paroled. Regarding last factor, con cluded be likely return crime, given propensity substance abuse lack viable means employment. That petition, did Appeal. review. subsequently corpus, granted. Governor’s reliance nature long-past offense vio lated right due process, each other factors unsupported record. affirmed, agreeing Court’s unreasonable application rule presented.” Kane, 384 Fed. Appx. 544, 546 II granting relief based courts misapplied “some evi dence” rule, must have assumed either available error law, correct State’s required Clause. Neither assumption correct. As first: “unambiguously 4 may issue ‘only ground custody violation Constitution laws treaties United States.’ ” Wilson Corcoran, ___, ___ (2010) (per curiam) (slip op., 4) (quoting §2254(a)). “We stated many times ‘federal does lie errors law.’ Estelle McGuire, 502 62, 67 (1991) Lewis Jeffers, 497 764, 780 (1990)). analysis provision proceeds two steps: We first ask exists property per son been deprived, so we procedures followed constitutionally sufficient. Kentucky Dept. Corrections Thompson, 490 454, 460 (1989). Here, held law creates see F.3d, 1213. While no need here, reasonable our cases. Pardons Allen, 482 369, 373–381 (1987); Greenholtz Inmates Neb. Correc tional Complex, 442 1, 12 (1979). Whatever is, course, law. There Federal conditionally released before expiration valid sentence, States are duty offer their prisoners. 7. When, however, interest, Clause fair vindi cation—and will those procedures. context minimal. Greenholtz, subject similar ade quate process when allowed opportunity heard provided statement reasons why 5 U.S., 16. Constitution,” held, “does require more.” Ibid. least this amount process: They al lowed speak hearings contest against them, afforded access cords advance, notified 1208–1212; 69a–80a; §§3041, 3041.5 should beginning end courts’ inquiry into process. Instead, Appeals reviewed decisions merits they unreasonably evidence. 1213–1216; Appx., 545–546. Other cases done same. See, e.g., Pearson Muntz, 606, 611 No opinion ours converting substantive fed eral requirement. here receiving standards met, minimum adequate due-process protection forth Greenholtz.* Hayward Marshall, —————— * argue greater protections revocation good-time credits apply, citing Rosenkrantz, 657–658, 205 (2002), Su preme refers good-time-credits Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution Walpole Hill, 472 445 (1985). But Rosenkrantz purport equate Califor nia’s system credits. cites Hill twice. citation merely observes relied upon earlier adopting test revoke previously 4th, 656, P. 3d, 204. second citation, occur part discuss ing decisions, simply borrows language from proposition “ ‘[r]equiring 6 603 546, 559 (CA9 2010) (en banc). inquire requisite Nebraska produced result required; fortiori concern (a procedure beyond what de mands) correctly applied. do pronounce “a component” Such reasoning federal-court state-prescribed proce dures involving interests, (of course) prosecutions. never To contrary, long recognized ‘mere law’ denial process.” Engle Isaac, 456 107, 121, n. 21 (1982); Estelle, 67–68. Because only procedural, relevant received, decided correctly. Circuit’s questionable supporting denials irrelevant stake, §2254(a) requires. id., 67. short matter responsibility assuring constitu tionally governing applied rests courts, business. certiorari respondents’ modicum ‘help prevent arbitrary deprivations.’ 658, 455). event, question requirements apply one law; neither these citations comes close addressing question. Any doubt score resolved subsequent footnote stating court’s premised 12, P.3d, 205, 12. 7 motions leave proceed forma pauperis judgments below Reversed. GINSBURG, J., concurring JUSTICE concurring. 445, 455 (1985), that, comply prisoner’s good time supported evidence.” entitled prisoners satisfac tion specified criteria, closely point. Circuit, system, Nebraska’s, (1979), controlling precedent. 559–561 banc)). Given determination, agree today’s summary disposition order.

Classification Label: 0