Wilson v. Diaz

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 18, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-06327
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WILLIE CURTIS WILSON, Case No. 20-cv-06327-JD

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 RALPH DIAZ, et al., Respondents. 11

12 13 Willie Wilson, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The original petition was dismissed with leave to amend and 15 petitioner has filed an amended petition. 16 BACKGROUND 17 In 1986, Wilson was found guilty of first-degree murder and robbery. Docket No. 1 at 27. 18 He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 31 years to life in state prison. Id. On November 19 27, 2018, the Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) denied parole for seven years. Id. 20 DISCUSSION 21 STANDARD OF REVIEW 22 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 23 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 24 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. 25 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 26 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 27 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 1 each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ 2 pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 3 of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 4 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 5 LEGAL CLAIMS 6 Wilson argues in the amended petition that: (1) he was improperly transferred to a different 7 prison before the BPH hearing, in violation of California regulations; (2) the lower state courts 8 erred in reviewing his petitions; (3) he was denied the right to confront witnesses; and (4) his 9 seven year parole denial was too long in violation of state and federal law. 10 To the extent Wilson argues that state law or state regulations were violated, he is not 11 entitled to federal habeas relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“We have stated 12 many times that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”). Nor is Wilson 13 entitled to relief for his challenge to the denial of parole. In Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 14 220 (2011), the Supreme Court explained that, in the context of parole, its earlier cases had “held 15 that the procedures required are minimal.” The Court earlier had “found that a prisoner subject to 16 a parole statute similar to California’s received adequate process when he was allowed an 17 opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Id. 18 As long as the petitioner received at least that much process, the federal court’s habeas review is at 19 an end. Id. 20 The state court reviewed the parole denial records and found that there was some evidence 21 to support the BPH denial. Docket No. 1 at 27-49. There is no evidence or allegations that 22 Wilson was denied an opportunity to be heard or denied a statement for the reasons why parole 23 was denied. Nor has Wilson exhausted such a claim. Wilson was already provided leave to 24 amend but no amount of further amendment will cure the deficiencies in the petition. The petition 25 is dismissed without leave to amend. 26 27 1 CONCLUSION 2 1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is 3 || DENIED. 4 2. The Clerk is requested to close this case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: December 18, 2020 7 8 JAMES ATO 9 United St@tes District Judge 10 11 12

© 15 16 & = 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28