Raby v. Koenig ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KEVIN R. RABY, Case No. 19-cv-05220-YGR (PR) 9 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; AND 10 v. DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 11 C. KOENIG, Warden, 12 Respondent. 13 Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming 14 that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with a decision by the California Board of 15 Parole Hearings (“Board”) in denying him parole on March 29, 2018. Petitioner specifically 16 claims that the decision does not comport with due process because it is not supported by “some 17 evidence” demonstrating that he poses a current unreasonable threat to the public. 18 A prisoner subject to California’s parole statute receives adequate process when he is 19 allowed an opportunity to be heard and is provided with a statement of the reasons why parole was 20 denied. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). The allegations in the petition show 21 Petitioner received at least this amount of process. Dkt. 1 at 14-27.1 The Constitution does not 22 require more. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220. 23 Whether the Board’s decision was supported by some evidence of current dangerousness is 24 irrelevant in federal habeas. The Supreme Court has made clear that “it is no federal concern . . . 25 whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the 26 Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Id. at 221. 27 1 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Pursuant to 2 || Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. 3 § 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that “reasonable jurists would find the district 4 || court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 5 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of 6 || Appeals. 7 Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Dkt. 9. 8 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 |} Dated: March 24, 2020 11 a (12 VONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 13 United States District Judge © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28