Hines v. Muniz

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-02428

ORDER Denying {{1}} Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; and Denying Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 7/21/15.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 MICHAEL HINES, 4 Case No. 15-cv-02428-DMR (PR) Petitioner, 5 ORDER DENYING PETITION v. FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS 6 CORPUS; AND DENYING W. L. MUNIZ, Acting Warden, CERTIFICATE OF 7 APPEALABILITY Respondent. 8 9 Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming 10 that his constitutional rights were violated in connection with an April 16, 2015 decision by the 11 California Board of Parole Hearings ("Board") denying him parole. Petitioner specifically claims 12 that the decision does not comport with due process because it is not supported by some evidence Northern District of California United States District Court 13 demonstrating that he poses "an unreasonable risk to public safety. . . ." Dkt. 1 at 5-6.1 He has 14 paid the full filing fee. 15 This action has been assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge. 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with written consent of all parties, a magistrate judge may 17 conduct all proceedings in a case, including entry of judgment.2 Appeal will be directly to the 18 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3). 19 On June 17, 2015, Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Dkt. 20 4. 21 22 1 Page number citations refer to those assigned by the court's electronic case management filing 23 system and not those assigned by Petitioner. 2 A magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the parties to enter dispositive rulings 24 and judgments in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in cases such as this one, where the petitioner has consented but the respondent has not been served, "all parties have 25 consented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)," and a magistrate judge therefore "'may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.'" 26 Gaddy v. McDonald, No. CV 11-08271 SS, 2011 WL 5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995)); 27 Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C 10-04470 LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2011)); cf. Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge 28 had jurisdiction to dismiss action as frivolous without consent of defendants because defendants had not yet been served and therefore were not parties). 1 A prisoner subject to California's parole statute receives adequate process when he is 2 allowed an opportunity to be heard and is provided with a statement of the reasons why parole was 3 denied. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). Petitioner's allegations in the petition 4 show he received at least this amount of process. Dkt. 1 at 5-6. The Constitution does not require 5 more. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at 220. 6 Whether the Board's decision was supported by some evidence of current dangerousness is 7 irrelevant in federal habeas. The Supreme Court has made clear that "it is no federal concern. . . 8 whether California's 'some evidence' rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the 9 Constitution demands) was correctly applied." Id. at 221. 10 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Pursuant to 11 Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. 12 § 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that "reasonable jurists would find the district Northern District of California United States District Court 13 court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 14 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of 15 Appeals. 16 The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent, terminate all pending 17 motions, and close the file. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: July 21, 2015 20 ______________________________________ DONNA M. RYU 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 MICHAEL HINES, 4 Case No. 4:15-cv-02428-DMR Plaintiff, 5 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 W.L. MUNIZ, 7 Defendant. 8 9 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 10 District Court, Northern District of California. 11 12 Northern District of California That on July 21, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing United States District Court 13 said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 14 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 15 receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 16 17 Michael Hines ID: E-48946 Salinas Valley State Prison 18 P.O. Box 1050 Soledad, CA 93960 19 20 Dated: July 21, 2015 21 22 Richard W. Wieking Clerk, United States District Court 23 24 25 By:________________________ Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 26 Honorable DONNA M. RYU 27 28 3