You're viewing Docket Item 3 from the case Bowden v. Spearman et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case3:13-cv-03216-WHA Document3 Filed07/30/13 Page1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL BOWDEN,

Petitioner,

v.
M.E. SPEARMAN, et al.,
Respondent.

/

No. C 13-3216 WHA (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The petition challenges the denial of parole by the
Governor of California.

ANALYSIS

A.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ

t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i



n
U

a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C




f
o

t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F

t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i



n
U

a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C




f
o

t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F

Case3:13-cv-03216-WHA Document3 Filed07/30/13 Page2 of 3

of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state
court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall
set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not
sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of
constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d
688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).
B.

LEGAL CLAIMS
Petitioner claims that the Governor violated his constitutional right to due process by

reversing the decision of the California Board of Prison Terms to grant him parole based on the
facts of his commitment offense. For purposes of federal habeas review, the federal
constitutional right to due process entitles a California only to “minimal” procedural protections
in connection with a parole suitability determination. Swarthout v Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863
(2011). The procedural protections are limited to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of
the reasons why parole was denied. Id. at 862. Petitioner does not dispute that he received an
opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons parole was denied. The constitution does
not require more. Ibid. Further, the court in Swarthout explained that no Supreme Court case
“supports converting California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement.”
Ibid. It is simply irrelevant in federal habeas review "whether California's 'some evidence' rule
of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied."
Id. at 863. As the Supreme Court has determined that due process does not require anything
more than the protections afforded to petitioner, his petition must be denied.
//
//

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i



n
U

a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C




f
o

t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F

Case3:13-cv-03216-WHA Document3 Filed07/30/13 Page3 of 3

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. Petitioner has failed to make a

substantial showing that a reasonable jurist would find this court’s denial of his claim debatable
or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of
appealability is warranted in this case.

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29 , 2013.


WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3