1 2

3

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No. CV 19-9871-PA (KK) 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 13 J. GASTELO, Warden, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition for a Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus, the records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the 19 United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those 20 portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected. 21 In his Objections, Petitioner argues the Report and Recommendation fails to 22 address his argument that the Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) “is not following the 23 law and their making arbitrary, capricious, illegal decisions” denying him parole in 24 2017 and 2019. Dkt. 14 at 1-2. The United States Supreme Court in Swarthout v. 25 Cooke,

,

,

(2011), however, “was 26 unequivocal in holding that if an inmate seeking parole receives an opportunity to be 27 heard, a notification of the reasons as to denial of parole, and access to their records 1 | whether [the inmate] received due process.”’ Pearson v. Muntz,

, 1191 2 | Oth Cir. 2011) (quoting Cooke,

) (alterations in original)); see also 3 |

US. at 221 (“[f]t is no federal concern... whether California’s ‘some 4 | evidence’ rule of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) 5 | was correctly applied.”’); Rodriguez v. Gonzales, No. EDCV 13-1389-DOC DTB, 6 |

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014), report and recommendation 7 | adopted sub nom. Rodriguez v. A.M. Gonzales, Warden,

(C.D. 8 | Cal. June 5, 2014) (holding federal habeas relief was not available on petitioner’s claim 9 | that the BPH’s “parole consideration hearing and denial of parole was arbitrary and 10 | capricious and violated his due process rights’’). The Court, therefore, accepts the 11 | findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered (1) dismissing 13 | Claims One and Three of the Petition challenging Petitioner’s ineligibility for early 14 | parole review without prejudice to Petitioner filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 15 |

; and (2) denying and dismissing Claim Two of the Petition 16 | challenging the November 6, 2018 disciplinary hearing with prejudice. 17 | Cte _ 18 | Dated: March 25, 2020

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28