From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. Grounds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 2, 2011
No. C 11-4997 JSW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)

Opinion

No. C 11-4997 JSW (PR)

11-02-2011

MICHAEL ANGELO WALKER, Petitioner, v. R. GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, currently incarcerated at the California Training Facility, has filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a decision by the Board of Parole Hearings to deny him parole. This order dismisses the petition for failing to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner claims that the denial of parole violated his right to due process because it was not supported by sufficient evidence. The United States Supreme Court has held that a California prisoner is entitled to only "minimal" procedural protections in connection with a parole suitability determination. Swarthout v Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 (2011). The procedural protections to which the prisoner is entitled under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are limited to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. Id. at 862. The transcript of the parole hearing shows that Petitioner received an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons parole was denied. The Constitution does not require more. Id. The Court in Swarthout explained that no Supreme Court case "supports converting California's 'some evidence' rule into a substantive federal requirement." Id. It is simply irrelevant in federal habeas review "whether California's 'some evidence' rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied." Id. at 863. In light of the Supreme Court's determination that due process does not require that there be any amount of evidence to support the parole denial, Petitioner's claim that the Board's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence fails to state a viable basis for federal habeas relief.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Furthermore, Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that his claims amounted to a denial of his constitutional rights and that a reasonable jurist would find this Court's denial of his claim debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case.

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge
MICHAEL ANGELO WALKER, Plaintiff, v. RANDY GROUNDS et al, Defendant. Case Number: CV11-04997 JSW

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on November 2, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Michael Angelo Walker
D91638
Correctional Training Facility
P.O. Box 689
Soledad, CA 93960
Dated: November 2, 2011

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Walker v. Grounds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 2, 2011
No. C 11-4997 JSW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Walker v. Grounds

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL ANGELO WALKER, Petitioner, v. R. GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 2, 2011

Citations

No. C 11-4997 JSW (PR) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011)