Lance Williams v. J. Gastelo

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No. CV 19-9871-PA (KK) Petitioner, v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF J. GASTELO, Warden, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondent. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. In his Objections, Petitioner argues the Report and Recommendation fails to address his argument that the Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) “is not following the law and their making arbitrary, capricious, illegal decisions” denying him parole in 2017 and 2019. Dkt. 14 at 1-2. The United States Supreme Court in Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 131 S. Ct. 859, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (2011), however, “was unequivocal in holding that if an inmate seeking parole receives an opportunity to be heard, a notification of the reasons as to denial of parole, and access to their records whether [the inmate] received due process.”’ Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 Oth Cir. 2011) (quoting Cooke, 562 U.S. at 220) (alterations in original)); see also Cooke, 562 US. at 221 (“[f]t is no federal concern... whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.”’); Rodriguez v. Gonzales, No. EDCV 13-1389-DOC DTB, 2014 WL 2557697, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Rodriguez v. A.M. Gonzales, Warden, 2014 WL 2567843 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2014) (holding federal habeas relief was not available on petitioner’s claim that the BPH’s “parole consideration hearing and denial of parole was arbitrary and capricious and violated his due process rights’’). The Court, therefore, accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered (1) dismissing Claims One and Three of the Petition challenging Petitioner’s ineligibility for early parole review without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) denying and dismissing Claim Two of the Petition challenging the November 6, 2018 disciplinary hearing with prejudice. Cte _ Dated: March 25, 2020