Raby v. Koenig

Background

Kevin R. Raby filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged the California Board of Parole Hearings’ March 29, 2018 decision denying him parole. Raby claimed that the decision violated due process because it was not supported by “some evidence” that he posed a current unreasonable threat to the public.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the rule that a California prisoner receives the process required by the federal Constitution when he has an opportunity to be heard and receives a statement explaining why parole was denied. The court determined from the allegations in Raby’s petition that he received at least those protections. Under the cited Supreme Court decision, the Constitution did not require more.

The court also held that the federal habeas case could not decide whether the Board’s decision was supported by “some evidence” of current dangerousness. The court explained that California’s “some evidence” rule is an additional state-law review procedure, and whether it was correctly applied was not a federal constitutional question.

Disposition

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. The court also denied a certificate of appealability because it could not say that reasonable judges would find the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Raby may seek a certificate of appealability from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court granted Raby’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and close the file. The order was signed by United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.