Kabede v. California State Governor's Parole Board Hearing Department

Background

Wondiyrad Kabede, identified as a state prisoner, filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating federal rights. The case began with a motion asking the court to take action, investigate through an assigned compliance officer, and appoint counsel. Kabede later filed a complaint using the court’s form.

Kabede alleged that he was being illegally kept in prison even though he qualified for “elderly parole” under an order issued by a three-judge court in related prison-overcrowding litigation. The materials attached to his complaint showed that he had been denied parole after a January 9, 2020 hearing. They also indicated that he had sought release through a medical parole process based on medical needs. He asked the court to investigate why he had not been paroled.

Court’s analysis

The court conducted the preliminary screening required when a prisoner seeks relief from a governmental entity or officer. It explained that a § 1983 claim requires an alleged violation of a right secured by federal law and an alleged violation by someone acting under state authority.

The court held that, to the extent Kabede challenged the denial of parole and sought earlier release through the elderly-parole or medical-parole programs, § 1983 was not the proper vehicle. Claims affecting the legality or duration of custody, including claims that could result in earlier release on parole, must be brought in a federal petition challenging custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court stated that a civil-rights complaint seeking that type of relief should be dismissed without prejudice so the prisoner may bring the claim as a federal custody petition.

The court noted that Kabede had referred to a prior related federal custody case, No. 19-cv-1992 EJD, which had been dismissed as a second or successive petition because it challenged the same underlying state conviction as an earlier petition. The court explained that this did not bar a new petition challenging the recent parole denial if Kabede could allege a violation of the minimum procedures required at a parole hearing: an opportunity to be heard and a statement of reasons for the decision. The court also stated that state judicial remedies must be exhausted before filing such a federal petition.

Separately, the court held that Kabede could not individually enforce orders from the existing Coleman/Plata prison-overcrowding class action because his requested investigation and relief fell within that class action’s scope. The court said he had to seek that relief through class counsel instead.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action without prejudice. It denied Kabede’s motion for court action, and the order characterized that motion as moot. The court stated that Kabede could file a federal custody petition challenging the recent parole denial after exhausting state-court remedies, or pursue injunctive relief through the existing Coleman/Plata class action. The order terminated Docket No. 1. The court did not decide whether Kabede was legally entitled to parole or whether the parole denial violated federal law.