2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MANUEL ARIAS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00242-MMD-WGC

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8

9 B.O.P. OF NEVADA, et al.,

10 Respondents.

11 12 I. SUMMARY 13 This is a habeas corpus action under

. The Court had directed 14 Petitioner Manuel Arias to pay the filing fee, which he has done. Currently before the Court 15 is the petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) (ECF No. 1-1). The Court now has 16 reviewed the Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the 17 United States District Courts. The Petition is without merit on its face, and the Court denies 18 the Petition. 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 Arias is convicted of manslaughter, and he has been sentenced to life imprisonment 21 with eligibility for parole starting after 10 years. Arias challenged the validity of the 22 judgment of conviction in Arias v. McDaniel, Case No. 3:02-cv-00454-DWH-VPC. In that 23 action, the Court found the Petition to be too vague, and the Court directed Arias to file an 24 amended petition. Arias did not file an amended petition in the allotted time, and the Court 25 dismissed the action without prejudice. 26 In the current action, Arias does not challenge the validity of the judgment of 27 conviction. He challenges the validity of the denial of parole. 28 /// 2 A. Ground 1 is without merit 3 In ground 1, Arias cites Zadvydas v. Davis,

(2001),1 to argue that 4 indefinite detention violates substantive due process rights. However, Zadvydas involved 5 an alien subject to removal from the United States who effectively was held indefinitely 6 under

(a)(6) because no country would take him. Arias is imprisoned for 7 life, with eligibility for parole, because he was convicted of a crime, and the Court 8 presumes that the judgment of conviction is valid. Zadvydas is inapplicable to Arias' case. 9 Arias also argues that he has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole. 10 He does not. Moor v. Palmer,

(9th Cir. 2010); see also NRS § 11 213.10705 (parole is an act of legislative grace, and no person has a right to be released 12 on parole). 13 Ground 1 is without merit on its face. Reasonable jurists would not find this 14 conclusion to be debatable or wrong, and the Court will not issue a certificate of 15 appealability for ground 1. 16 B. Ground 2 is without merit 17 In ground 2, Arias alleges that the parole board did not consider the circumstances 18 and facts in his parole hearing, then his request for reconsideration was denied. Again, 19 Arias does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole. Moor,

. To the extent that Arias is claiming that the parole board did not follow the 21 correct procedures, he is alleging only a violation of state law. "A federal court may not 22 issue the writ on the basis of a perceived error of state law." Pulley v. Harris,

, 23 41 (1984). 24 Ground 2 is without merit on its face. Reasonable jurists would not find this 25 conclusion to be debatable or wrong, and the Court will not issue a certificate of 26 appealability for ground 2. 27

28 1Arias cited the reversed decision of the Fifth Circuit. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) The Court has corrected the citation to the Supreme Court's decision. 1 C. Ground 3 is without merit 2 Arias styles ground 3 as a violation of the Eighth Amendment's guarantee against 3 || cruel and unusual punishments and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due 4 || process. However, he alleges that the executive secretary of the parole board may deny 5 || arequest for reconsideration without submitting the request to the board itself. Again, Arias 6 || is alleging only a violation of state law, which is not addressable in federal habeas corpus. 7 || Harris,

. 8 Ground 3 is without merit on its face. Reasonable jurists would not find this 9 || conclusion to be debatable or wrong, and the Court will not issue a certificate of 10 || appealability for ground 3. 11 D. The Court denies the motion for appointment of counsel 12 Arias has filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 7). The Court denies 13 || this motion because the Petition is clearly without merit on its face. 14 || IV. CONCLUSION 15 It is therefore ordered that the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 7) is 16 || denied. 17 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court file the petition for a writ of habeas 18 || corpus (ECF No. 1-1). 19 It is further ordered that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. The Clerk 20 || of the Court will enter judgment accordingly and close this action. 21 It is further ordered that that the Clerk shall add Aaron Ford, Attorney General for 22 || the State of Nevada, as counsel for Respondents. 23 It is further ordered that the Clerk shall electronically serve upon Respondents a 24 || copy of this order and the petition. No response is necessary. 25 DATED THIS 25" day of June 2020. 26 {Ga 27 MIRANDA M. DU 28 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE