(HC) Young v. Pfeiffer ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HOWARD A. YOUNG, No. 1:18-cv-01339-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 14 C. PFEIFFER, RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DENYING PETITIONER’S HABEAS 15 Respondent. PETITION IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR 16 A COPY OF HIS OBJECTIONS 17 (Doc. Nos. 1, 41, 45) 18 19 20 Petitioner Howard Young is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of 21 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and seeking relief from his 2017 denial of parole by 22 the California Board of Parole Hearings. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 23 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On June 4, 2019, respondent moved to dismiss the pending petition. (Doc. No. 24.) On 25 February 26, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 26 recommending that the court grant respondent’s motion to dismiss four of petitioner’s claims 27 because they either lack merit on their face or are not cognizable claims for federal habeas relief. 28 (Doc. No. 41.) The magistrate judge, on his own motion, further recommended dismissal of 1 petitioner’s two remaining claims for the same reasons. The findings and recommendations were 2 served on both parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 3 fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the order. (Id. at 10.) Petitioner’s motion for an 4 extension of time to March 19, 2020 in order to file his objections was granted. (Doc. No. 43.) 5 On March 19, 2020, petitioner timely sent the court his objections to the pending findings and 6 recommendations, which the court received on March 24, 2020. (Doc. No. 44.) 7 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 8 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 9 objections, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the 10 record and proper analysis. 11 In his objections, petitioner reiterates several arguments that he had previously made in 12 either his habeas petition or his opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss and that were 13 already addressed in the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 44; see also Doc. 14 Nos. 1, 26.) The court will therefore only address petitioner’s new arguments. 15 First, petitioner argues that the magistrate judge misconstrued the Supreme Court’s 16 holding of Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011), in rejecting his due process claim. (Doc. 17 No. 44 at 2–4.) Petitioner appears to assert that, under Cooke, the federal Due Process Clause 18 requires that inmates be allowed to appear and speak in person at their parole hearings and be 19 provided an attorney for the proceeding. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 5; 44 at 2 (citing Cooke, 562 U.S. at 20 220).) This is not so. The section in Cooke referenced by petitioner reads: 21 Whatever liberty interest exists is, of course, a state interest created by California law. There is no right under the Federal Constitution 22 to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to offer parole to their 23 prisoners. When, however, a State creates a liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires fair procedures for its vindication— 24 and federal courts will review the application of those constitutionally required procedures. In the context of parole, we 25 have held that the procedures required are minimal. In Greenholtz, we found that a prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to 26 California’s received adequate process when he was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the 27 reasons why parole was denied. “The Constitution,” we held, “does not require more.” Cooke and Clay received at least this 28 amount of process: They were allowed to speak at their parole 1 hearings and to contest the evidence against them, were afforded access to their records in advance, and were notified as to the 2 reasons why parole was denied. 3 Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). In other words, a state may create a 4 liberty interest and establish procedures for its vindication, but federal habeas relief sought 5 pursuant to the federal Due Process Clause hinges not on compliance with those state procedures 6 but with what the federal Constitution requires.1 See id. (holding that “the minimum procedures 7 adequate for due process protection of [the interest in parole] are those set forth in Greenholtz.”); 8 see also Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1046–47 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that “[t]he question 9 of which due process requirements apply is one of federal law, not [state] law” (quoting Cooke, 10 562 U.S. at 221 n.1)). In that context, the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that the only 11 procedures required are an opportunity to be heard and a statement of why parole was denied. 12 Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220. “The Constitution does not require more.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of 13 Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 16 (1979). 14 Since Cooke, the Ninth Circuit has rigorously applying its holding. For example, in 15 reversing a California district court’s grant of a habeas petition, the Ninth Circuit stated: 16 Cooke was unequivocal in holding that if an inmate seeking parole receives an opportunity to be heard, a notification of the reasons as 17 to denial of parole, and access to their records in advance, “[t]hat should . . . be [ ] the beginning and the end of [the] inquiry into 18 whether [the inmate] received due process.” To reiterate, Pearson has not questioned whether those procedures were provided, and 19 therefore, after Cooke, our inquiry is at its end. 20 1 A California Court of Appeal has noted that, as a matter of federal constitutional law, “due 21 process includes the right of the parolee to appear in person at his or her parole revocation hearing.” In re J.G., 159 Cal. App. 4th 1056, 1064 (2008) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 22 U.S. 488–89 (1972)) (emphasis added). But that court declined to address whether an inmate is 23 entitled to any specific due process protections—state or federal—in a parole consideration hearing, only concluding that an inmate is entitled to various rights in connection with such a 24 hearing as provided by California statute. Id. The state appellate court also affirmed that “‘[a]n incarcerated individual for whom a parole date has not been set possesses less of an expectation 25 of liberty than one for whom a release date previously has been established by the Board.’” Id. (quoting In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal. 4th 616, 656 (2002)). Thus, even if the state had erred as a 26 matter of state statutory law by refusing petitioner the opportunity to appear at his parole hearing 27 in person, “[a] state’s misapplication of its own laws does not provide a basis for granting a federal writ of habeas corpus.” Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing 28 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) and Cooke, 562 U.S. at 219.) 1 Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220.).2 Here, 2 petitioner does not deny that he received an opportunity to be heard in connection with his 3 consideration for release on parole; rather, he objects that he was not heard in person and was not 4 provided an attorney for the hearing. (Doc. Nos. 1 at 5; 44 at 2.) Neither appear to be guaranteed 5 under the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause. 6 Next, petitioner argues that the prison’s denial of his preferred housing placement and 7 preferred program participation prevents him from earning work credits, which will decrease his 8 chances of being found eligible for parole. (Doc. No. 44 at 7–8.) Claims for relief that will not 9 necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement do not fall within the “core of 10 habeas corpus.” See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). The mere 11 possibility of earlier parole does not make his claim cognizable. See id. at 934–35. Because 12 petitioner has failed to show how placement in his preferred housing and programs will 13 necessarily lead to his immediate or earlier release, the court cannot grant federal habeas relief on 14 petitioner’s claim. 15 Finally, petitioner seeks relief from the prison’s application of nineteen mandatory points 16 arising from rules violation reports to his record. (Doc. No. 44 at 8.) Petitioner states that these 17 points will affect his chances of being placed in transitional housing and therefore will ultimately 18 affect the duration of his confinement. (Id.) However, petitioner’s claim that the points will 19 affect the duration of his confinement is merely speculative because “[t]he decision to release a 20 prisoner rests on a myriad of considerations.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995). Even 21 if his nineteen points were removed, the parole board “will still have the authority to deny . . . 22 parole on the basis of any of the grounds presently available to it in evaluating such a request.” 23 Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, petitioner has failed to show how 24 the presence of these points stemming from disciplinary proceedings will necessarily lead to his 25 immediate or earlier release from confinement. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 934–35. 26 2 In a similar case, the Ninth Circuit again affirmed that: “Cooke clearly holds that the 27 ‘responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s parole system are properly applied rests with California courts.’” Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 28 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cooke, 562 U.S. at 222). 1 Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the court now turns to whether 2 a certificate of appealability should issue. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 3 absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, as an appeal is only allowed 4 under certain circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-336 5 (2003). In addition, Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires that a district 6 court issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 7 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 8 Cir. 1997). 9 If, as here, a court denies relief to a habeas petitioner, the court may only issue a 10 certificate of appealability when “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 11 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner must 12 establish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition 13 should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to 14 deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) 15 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). 16 In the present case, the court concludes that petitioner has not made the required 17 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify the issuance of a certificate of 18 appealability. Reasonable jurists would not find the court’s determination that petitioner is not 19 entitled to federal habeas corpus relief wrong or debatable, and they would not conclude that 20 petitioner is deserving of encouragement to proceed further. The court therefore declines to issue 21 a certificate of appealability. 22 Finally, petitioner requests that the court provide him a copy of his objections to the 23 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations because he had to send in the original 24 document and was not allowed to make any copies due to the restrictions put into place as a result 25 of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc. No. 45.) Good cause having been shown, petitioner’s request 26 in this regard will be granted. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly: 2 1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 26, 2020 (Doc. No. 41), are 3 adopted in full; 4 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 24) is granted; 5 3. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied in its entirety; 6 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; 7 5. Petitioner’s request (Doc. No. 45) to be sent a copy of his objections (Doc. No. 44) 8 to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations is granted and the Clerk 9 of the Court is directed to serve petitioner a copy of his objections (Doc. No. 44) to 10 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations: and 11 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 12 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ 8 Dated: _ April 13, 2020 J aL Al 5 7 a 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28