Culverson v. Davison

237 F. App'x 174

Opinions

MEMORANDUM

Footnotes

•

**

We assume without deciding that the denial of parole must be supported by “some evidence.”¹ Under California law, which is the source of the petitioner’s “liberty interest,”² the nature of the eommitment offense alone can suffice as “some evidence” justifying a denial of parole.³ There is no “clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,”⁴ that limits the number of times a parole board may deny parole to a murderer based on the brutality and viciousness of the commitment offense.⁵

REVERSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 456-57, 105 S.Ct. 2768 (1985); see also Jancsek v. Oregon Bd. of Parole, 833 F.2d 1389, 1390 (9th Cir.1987).

2

. See Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 12, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979); Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 377-78, 107 S.Ct. 2415, 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987); see also McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir.2002).

3

. See Cal. Pen.Code § 3041(b); 15 C.C.R. §§ 2400-02; see also In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1094-96, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 104 P.3d 783 (2005); In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal.4th 616, 682-83, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 104, 59 P.3d 174 (2002).

4

. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

5

. The dicta in Ninth Circuit cases like Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 916-17 (9th Cir.2003), are not holdings of the Supreme Court, as required by Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 649, 654-57, 166 L.Ed.2d 482 (2006), and Schriro v. Landrigan, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 1941-43, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007).