Opinion
No. 2:13-cv-2217 CKD P
11-18-2013
JOHN MITCHELL RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. R. HILL, Respondent.
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis request reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this action. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. In his petition, petitioner asserts that the decision to deny him parole in 2011 was based on false evidence. Petitioner has a liberty interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 861-62 (2011). However, the procedural protections which must be afforded with respect to the liberty interest implicated are minimal; the "Constitution does not require more" than "an opportunity to be heard" at a parole hearing and that the potential parolee be "provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied." Id. at 862. Petitioner was provided both an opportunity to be heard, and a statement of reasons why parole was denied. Petitioner has no Constitutional right concerning the sufficiency of evidence upon which a denial of parole is based. Accordingly, petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus should be summarily dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; and
2. The Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
____________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE