Geray v. Shaffer
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:20-cv-05383
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Geray v. Shaffer, Judge Chhabria dismissed Geray’s parole petition with prejudice because it alleged no federal due-process violation.
Jason Geray’s federal challenge to the denial of parole was dismissed with prejudice; the California Board of Parole Hearings’ parole decision remained in place.
What happened
In Geray v. Shaffer, Jason Geray, a state prisoner, challenged the California Board of Parole Hearings’ denial of parole. He argued that the Board denied him for the same reason two years in a row and failed to provide rehabilitation opportunities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court said federal law required only that Geray have an opportunity to be heard and receive the reasons for the parole denial. The state court’s order showed that the Board gave reasons, and Geray did not claim that he lacked an opportunity to be heard. The federal court therefore could not review whether the Board correctly evaluated his parole eligibility or followed California law.
Judge Chhabria granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition with prejudice because changing it would be futile. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, directed the clerk to end the pending motions, enter a separate judgment, and close the case.
The detailed version
- Geray v. Shaffer · No. 3:20-cv-05383
- Vince Chhabria
- Apr. 2, 2021
Background
Jason Geray, a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ denial of parole. The respondent moved to dismiss the petition.
Geray alleged that the Board violated due process by denying him parole for the same reason two years in a row. He also alleged that the Board required additional rehabilitation efforts even though no rehabilitation programs were available because of COVID-19. Geray did not attach the Board’s decision, but he attached a California Superior Court order stating that the Board relied on the violence involved in his crime, his prior serious criminal record, his prison disciplinary record, and his limited programming.
Court’s analysis
The court relied on Swarthout v. Cooke, which held that, in a parole case, federal due process requires an opportunity to be heard and a statement explaining why parole was denied. When a prisoner receives those procedures, federal habeas review ends; the federal court does not decide whether the parole board reached the correct substantive result.
The Superior Court’s order showed that the Board provided Geray with reasons for denying parole. Geray did not allege that the Board denied him an opportunity to be heard. The court therefore concluded that he received all the process required by the federal Constitution. His allegations did not establish a violation of federal law and instead challenged the Board’s decision under state-law standards.
Geray cited In re Ryner, a California case applying California’s “some evidence” review of parole decisions. The court explained that California courts may review whether the record supports a parole decision, but this federal court was limited to deciding whether Geray received procedural due process under federal law.
Disposition
The court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed the petition with prejudice because amendment would be futile. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue, directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, enter a separate judgment, and close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.