Phillips v. Broomfield

Background

Eric Phillips, identified in the petition as a California prisoner, sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged the California Board of Parole Hearings’ April 10, 2018 decision denying him parole. Phillips argued that the Board violated due process by finding him unsuitable for parole for five years despite what he described as substantial evidence that he was suitable.

Phillips also asked for permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that request based on his affidavit of poverty.

Court’s reasoning

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout v. Cooke. It explained that, in a parole case, due process requires an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons for denying parole. The Constitution does not require more in this context.

The court further explained that federal habeas review does not decide whether the parole board correctly applied California’s “some evidence” rule. Phillips did not question whether he received an opportunity to be heard, reasons for the denial, or access to his records before the hearing. Because he did not challenge those required procedures, the court concluded that its due-process inquiry ended there.

Disposition

The court dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It also denied a certificate of appealability under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases because it concluded that reasonable jurists would not find its assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The order was issued by United States District Judge Charles R. Breyer.