(HC) Gasner v. Matteson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GASNER, No. 2:21-cv-0453-EFB P

Petitioner, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

G. MATTESON,

Respondent.

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review.

Petitioner challenges Governor Newsom’s reversal of the California Board of Parole Hearings’ finding of suitability for parole. See ECF No. 1 at 8 (¶ III); ECF No. 3 at 15. Essentially, petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for denying parole.

Petitioner does have a liberty interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). However, the procedural protections which must be afforded with respect to the liberty interest implicated are minimal; the “Constitution does not require more” than “an opportunity to be heard” at a parole hearing and that the potential parolee be “provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” /d. There is no due process requirement, or requirement under any other provision of federal law, that the evidence supporting a denial of parole reach a certain threshold. /d. at 220- 21. To the extent petitioner suggests he was entitled to an opportunity to be heard directly by the Governor, there is no basis in law for that position.

For these reasons, it is plain that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief and his habeas petition must be summarily dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.

Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that:

1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and 2. The Clerk be directed to close the case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant).

DATED: March 19, 2021. Sg Vator f Lb LM A; EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE