(HC) Lugo v. Fisher

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 5, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00917
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 KEITH ROBERT LUGO, Case No. 1:25-cv-00917-EPG-HC

10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 11 v. HABEAS CORPUS

12 R FISHER, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 Respondent.

14 15 Petitioner Keith Robert Lugo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 16 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Given that the petition fails to state a cognizable 17 federal habeas claim, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed. 18 I. 19 BACKGROUND 20 In 1990, Petitioner was convicted in the San Diego County Superior Court of two counts 21 of first-degree murder with use of a firearm. Petitioner was sentenced to an imprisonment term of 22 fifty-one years to life. (ECF No. 1 at 1–2.1) In the petition, Petitioner challenges the Board of 23 Parole Hearings’ denial of parole. (ECF No. 1 at 1; ECF No. 1-2.) 24 II. 25 DISCUSSION 26 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 27 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 1 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 2 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 3 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 4 In the petition, Petitioner challenges denial of parole, arguing that the Board denied 5 Petitioner due process and equal protection. (ECF No. 1-2.) “There is no constitutional or 6 inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid 7 sentence.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. U.S. 1, 7 (1979). 8 “[O]nly state law can give rise to a liberty interest in parole that is entitled to the protections of 9 the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.” Miller v. Oregon Bd. of Parole & Post Prison 10 Supervision, 642 F.3d 711, 712 (9th Cir. 2011). “[T]he Ninth Circuit [has] held that California 11 law creates a liberty interest in parole,” and the Supreme Court noted such a holding “is a 12 reasonable application of our cases.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219–20 (2011) (per 13 curiam). 14 When . . . a State creates a liberty interest, the Due Process Clause requires fair procedures for its vindication—and federal courts will 15 review the application of those constitutionally required procedures. In the context of parole, we have held that the 16 procedures required are minimal. In Greenholtz, we found that a prisoner subject to a parole statute similar to California’s received 17 adequate process when he was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was 18 denied. “The Constitution,” we held, “does not require more.” 19 Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220 (citations omitted). 20 “Because the only federal right at issue is procedural, the relevant inquiry is what process 21 [the prisoner] received . . . .” Cooke, 562 U.S. at 222. “If the state affords the procedural 22 protections required by Greenholtz and Cooke, that is the end of the matter for purposes of the 23 Due Process Clause.” Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, Petitioner 24 asserts that the Board failed to give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as 25 compared to adults, arbitrarily removed all the mitigating factors previously awarded by the 26 previous Board in support of suitability, and improperly shifted the burden of proof for 27 suitability. (ECF No. 1-2 at 6–7.) The petition does not allege that Petitioner was deprived of an 1 | denied. “[T]herefore, after Cooke, our inquiry is at its end,” Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 2 | 1191 (9th Cir. 2011), and the petition fails to state a claim for federal habeas relief. 3 Il. 4 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 5 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 6 | habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. 7 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 8 | the present matter. 9 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 10 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 11 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 12 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 13 | written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and 14 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 15 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will 16 | then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are 17 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 18 | District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 19 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22| Dated: _ September 5, 2025 [spe ey 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28