1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No. CV 21-3912 CAS (MRW) 13 ANSELMO E. PEREZ, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 Petitioner, 15 v. 16 CRAIG KOENIG, Warden, 17 Respondent. 18

19 The Court grants the Attorney General’s unopposed motion to 20 dismiss this habeas corpus action for (a) lack of jurisdiction and (b) failure 21 to state a cognizable claim. 22 * * * 23 1. Petitioner is a state prisoner. In 1991, he was convicted of 24 murder and sentenced to 19 years to life in prison. (Docket # 1 at 2.) 25 According to the California Attorney General, the state parole board denied 26 parole to Petitioner on several occasions. The most recent denial was in 27 28 1 August 2019. His next parole hearing is scheduled for August 2022. 2 (Docket # 10 at 3-4.) 3 2. Petitioner’s federal habeas petition broadly challenges aspects 4 of the state’s parole system and the most recent denial of his request for 5 parole. (Docket # 1 at 5-6.) The Attorney General moved to dismiss the 6 petition. The Attorney General argued that the claims in the petition do 7 not present a federal constitutional claim upon which relief may be 8 granted. (Docket # 10.) 9 3. Magistrate Judge Wilner issued two orders informing 10 Petitioner of his obligation to respond to the Attorney General’s dismissal 11 motion. (Docket # 12, 13.) Both orders informed Petitioner that, under the 12 Local Rules of Court, an unopposed motion is deemed consent to the relief 13 requested in the motion. However, Petitioner failed to respond to either 14 order or to substantively oppose the motion. 15 * * * 16 4. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person 17 detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may dismiss a habeas 18 action.

; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 19 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be summarily 20 dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief); Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 21 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary dismissal to 22 district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition [ ] that the 23 petitioner is not entitled to relief”). 24 5. Local Rule of Court 7-9 requires a party to file a memorandum 25 stating the basis for that party’s opposition to a motion. Local Rule 7-12 26 states that the “failure to file any required document [ ] may be deemed 27 consent to the granting or denial of the motion.” 28 1 * * * 2 6. The scope of federal review of adverse parole determinations is 3 quite narrow. The sole federal constitutional issue that a court may 4 consider is whether a prisoner received “minimal” due process protections: 5 “an opportunity to be heard” and “a statement of reasons” for the denial of 6 parole. Swarthout v. Cooke,

(2011). A federal court does 7 not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the merits of the parole 8 hearing, reweigh the evidence presented to the board, or evaluate a 9 prisoner’s claim for parole under state guidelines. If the state provided 10 “fair procedures” in the parole process, “that is the end of the matter” on 11 federal review. Roberts v. Hartley,

(9th Cir. 2011); 12 Harrison v. Shaffer,

, 279 (9th Cir. 2021) (affirming 13 dismissal of § 1983 action challenging denial of parole; prisoner “failed to 14 allege facts sufficient to state a plausible due process claim”). 15 7. Petitioner failed to plead a plausible or recognizable 16 constitutional claim for habeas relief. The petition does not allege that the 17 state parole board violated the minimal due process rights (opportunity to 18 address the parole board or receipt of an explanation of the denial of 19 parole) identified in Cooke. To the contrary, the petition challenges the 20 substance of the board’s basis for denying him parole: Petitioner’s “lack of 21 insight” regarding his criminal conduct. (Docket # 1 at 6.) That is 22 insufficient to state a habeas claim under the federal constitution or for 23 this Court to exercise jurisdiction. Roberts,

. 24 8. The remainder of the petition consists of broad challenges to 25 the substance of the state’s statutory scheme for evaluating parole 26 requests. Those state law considerations are not cognizable on federal 27 28 1 | habeas review.!

(a); Cooke,

, 222 (citing 2 | Estelle v. McGuire,

(1991)). 3 9. Additionally, Local Rule 7-12 warrants dismissal of the case. 4 | The Court informed Petitioner of this requirement in two previous orders. 5 | Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 6 | 2019). Petitioner did not respond to the Attorney General’s dismissal 7 | motion. Petitioner’s failure to oppose the motion signifies his consent to 8 | the dismissal of the action. 9 Therefore, the present action is DISMISSED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ad 12 | Dated: November 2, 2021 do 13 HON. CHRISTINA A. SNYDER SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 Presented by: 16 17 18 | HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22, 23 24 25 1 The petition does not present any cognizable claim regarding 26 | Petitioner’s future parole consideration. As a result, the Court exercises its discretion to conclude that the habeas petition is not amenable to conversion into 27 | a civil rights complaint. Nettles v. Grounds,

(9th Cir. 2016); Richardson v. Board of Prison Hearings,

, 435 (9th Cir. 2021) 28 (same).