Phillips v. Broomfield ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ERIC PHILLIPS, J91735, Case No. 20-cv-03419-CRB (PR) 8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 9 v. (ECF No. 3) 10 RON BROOMFIELD, Acting Warden, 11 Respondent. 12 I. 13 Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California 14 Board of Parole Hearings’ (BPH) April 10, 2018 decision to deny him parole. Petitioner claims 15 BPH violated his due process rights by finding him unsuitable for parole for five years despite 16 substantial suitability evidence to the contrary. 17 Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 18 (ECF No. 3) which, based on his affidavit of poverty, is GRANTED. 19 II. 20 The Supreme Court has made clear that, in the context of parole, a prisoner subject to a 21 parole statute similar to California’s receives adequate process when he is allowed an opportunity 22 to be heard and is provided with a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. Swarthout v. 23 Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). The Constitution does not require more. Id. 24 Whether BPH’s decision was supported by some evidence of parole unsuitability is 25 irrelevant in federal habeas. The Supreme Court has made clear that “it is no federal concern . . . 26 whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the 27 Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Id. at 221. And for the same reason, it is no 1 As the Ninth Circuit has put it, “Cooke was unequivocal in holding that if an inmate 2 seeking parole receives an opportunity to be heard, a notification of the reasons as to denial of 3 parole, and access to their records in advance, ‘[t]hat should . . . be [] the beginning and the end of 4 [the] inquiry into whether [the inmate] received due process.’” Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 5 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220). Because petitioner does not question 6 whether these procedures were provided, this court’s inquiry “‘is at its end.” Id. 7 III. 8 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. And 9 pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of appealability 10 (COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that “reasonable jurists 11 would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack 12 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 31, 2020 15 i — 16 CHARLES R. BREYER & United States District Judge 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28