Wilson v. Diaz
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-06327
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Wilson v. Diaz, Judge Donato dismissed Wilson’s amended federal habeas petition with prejudice because it alleged no basis for federal relief.
Willie Curtis Wilson’s federal challenge to his state custody and seven-year parole denial was dismissed with prejudice; the respondents were Ralph Diaz and the other named respondents.
What happened
Willie Curtis Wilson, a California prisoner, filed an amended federal petition challenging his transfer before a parole hearing, state-court review, his ability to confront witnesses, and a seven-year parole denial in Wilson v. Diaz.
The court explained that violations of state law or regulations generally cannot support federal relief. It also held that parole procedures require only an opportunity to be heard and reasons for the denial, and Wilson did not allege that he was denied either. The court noted that he had not exhausted such a claim and that further amendment would not cure the petition’s problems.
Judge Donato dismissed the action with prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Diaz · No. 3:20-cv-06327
- James Donato
- Dec. 18, 2020
Background
Willie Curtis Wilson, identified in the opinion as a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state custody. The court had dismissed his original petition while allowing him to amend it. Wilson then filed an amended petition.
The opinion states that Wilson was found guilty of first-degree murder and robbery in 1986 and received an indeterminate sentence of 31 years to life in state prison. On November 27, 2018, the California Board of Parole Hearings denied parole for seven years.
Claims
Wilson’s amended petition argued that:
- He was improperly transferred to another prison before the parole hearing, in violation of California regulations.
- The lower state courts erred in reviewing his petitions.
- He was denied the right to confront witnesses.
- The seven-year parole denial was too long under state and federal law.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that federal habeas relief is available only when a person is held in violation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. Errors involving state law or state regulations do not, by themselves, support federal habeas relief.
Regarding the parole challenge, the court applied the Supreme Court’s rule that parole procedures require only minimal process: an opportunity to be heard and a statement explaining why parole was denied. The court noted that the state court had reviewed the parole-denial records and found some evidence supporting the Board’s decision. The opinion also states that Wilson did not allege or show that he was denied an opportunity to be heard or a statement of reasons. The court further stated that Wilson had not exhausted such a claim.
Because Wilson had already been given an opportunity to amend and further amendment would not cure the petition’s deficiencies, the court dismissed the petition without leave to amend.
Disposition
The action was dismissed with prejudice. The court denied a certificate of appealability and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.