(HC) Stafford v. Matteson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN KEITH STAFFORD, No. 2:20-cv-1618 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 G. MATTESON, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Examination of the request to proceed in forma pauperis reveals 20 that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed 21 in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 23 petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 24 petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted the review required under Rule 4. 25 Petitioner alleges he has been unlawfully denied parole. To the extent petitioner alleges 26 his being denied parole violates California law, petitioner is not entitled to relief in this court as a 27 federal habeas petition can only be granted upon a violation of federal law. 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). 28 ///// 1 Petitioner’s federal rights with respect to California parole proceedings are limited. 2 Petitioner does have a liberty interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause of the 3 Fourteenth Amendment. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 861–62 (2011). However, the 4 procedural protections which must be afforded are limited to “an opportunity to be heard” at a 5 parole hearing and that the potential parolee be “provided a statement of the reasons why parole 6 was denied.” Id. at 862. The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the notion that a federal 7 court may review the sufficiency of the evidence upon which a denial of parole is based. Id. at 8 862–63. In his petition, petitioner does not allege he was denied any process at his parole hearing 9 guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. 10 Petitioner is serving a sentence of 33-years-to-life imprisonment for first degree murder. 11 Petitioner has served approximately 30 years of his sentence and alleges the time he has actually 12 served amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 13 However, petitioner has no federal right to be released from prison prior to the expiration of a 14 lawful sentence. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). 15 In light of the foregoing, and because plaintiff fails to assert any other arguable violations 16 of federal law, the court will recommend that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be 17 summarily dismissed. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HERBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is granted; and 20 2. The Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case. 21 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 22 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and 23 2. This case be closed. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 27 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 28 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections, petitioner may address whether a wOAIe 2 CUVEE LEONG IVINS INES MVOC, to PI Oe LP Ye VMI 1 | certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 2 | case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 3 | deny acertificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as 4 | here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should 5 || issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 6 | district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 7 | debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris 8 | v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 9 | (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 10 | the nght to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 || Dated: September 29, 2020 CA rd fe / o—, 12 CAROLYN K DELANEY 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 | , staff1618.bop 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28