Opinion
Case No. CIV S-06-1103 VAP (HC)
01-24-2012
CLARENCE YOUNG, Petitioner, v. D.K. SISTO, Respondent.
[Petition filed on May 22, 2006]
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED
BY A STATE PRISONER AND
DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE
On July 22, 2010, the Court granted Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. No. 21.) Respondent appealed the Court's order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Doc. No. 24.) During the pendency of Respondent's appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 859 (2011) (per curiam), which clarified the standard under which district courts review a State's parole suitability decisions. In light of Cooke, the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment of this Court and remanded the action. (Mem. (Doc. No. 32) at 2.)
In Cooke, the Supreme Court held that as "[t]here is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to offer parole to their prisoners,' [federal courts] may review only whether the California-created liberty interest in parole satisfies the 'minimal' procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause." Cooke, 131 S. Ct. at 862. In other words, "[b]ecause the only federal right at issue is procedural, the relevant inquiry is what process [the petitioner] received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly." Id. at 863. Here, as the Ninth Circuit noted in its Memorandum, Petitioner raises no procedural challenges. (See Mem. at 2.) Accordingly, under Cooke, "that is the end of the matter for purposes of the Due Process Clause." Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The Court therefore DENIES the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and DISMISSES the action WITH PREJUDICE.
________________________
VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS
United States District Judge