Paul Guardado v. Margarita Perez

428 F. App'x 770

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2011
• Docket: 09-17832
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

This is an appeal from the district court’s grant of habeas relief. As the facts are familiar to the parties, we repeat them here only as necessary to explain our decision. After much litigation, the California Board of Parole granted Paul Albert Guardado’s parole application. Governor Schwarzenegger then vetoed that determination. The district court granted Guardado’s habeas application and ordered his release, determining that Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto violated California’s “some evidence” requirement. Under then-binding Ninth Circuit precedent, this amounted to a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Pirtle v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 611 F.3d 1015, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010).

The Supreme Court subsequently held that reviewing California parole decisions for compliance with California’s “some evidence” standard “is no part of the Ninth Circuit’s business.” Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011), reversing sub nom., Cooke v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2010). Instead, the Court reaffirmed its previous holding that the U.S. Constitution affords parole applicants only “minimal” due process: an opportunity to be heard and a statement of reasons why parole was denied. Id. at 862 (citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979)); see also Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011). These rights were clearly afforded to Guardado. Accordingly, his due process rights were not violated. Since the petition may easily be denied on the merits, we do not decide whether Guardado properly exhausted his state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 1

REVERSED.

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

1 . Guardado moved to stay this appeal pending the reconsideration motion in Swarthout. Because the Supreme Court has since denied that motion, we deny Guardado’s request for a stay as moot.