Al Khafaji v. Koenig

Background

Haydar Al-Khafaji, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ August 15, 2019 decision finding him unsuitable for parole at that time. The state courts denied his challenges. Those courts concluded that the parole board’s decision was supported by some evidence and was not arbitrary or procedurally flawed.

The federal petition argued that the parole board violated due process by relying on an outdated psychiatric report, giving too much weight to mental-health and substance-abuse issues, and giving too little weight to his good conduct, self-improvement, and plans for release.

Court’s Analysis

The court had previously ordered Al-Khafaji to explain why the petition should not be dismissed. It had determined that his original claim did not state a valid federal habeas claim because federal courts may not review the correctness of a state parole decision when the prisoner received the minimum procedures required by the federal Constitution: an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons for the denial. The federal Due Process Clause also does not require correct application of California’s “some evidence” standard.

In response, Al-Khafaji did not dispute that he received those procedures. Instead, he asserted that the parole hearing was biased, pointing to a commissioner’s question: “So you have a problem with women?” The court recognized that a prisoner is entitled to have parole considered by an unbiased decision-making body, but found that this single allegation was too conclusory to state a valid federal claim. The court also noted that the bias claim was not included in the federal petition.

The court declined to allow an amended petition because doing so would be futile. Al-Khafaji had not presented the bias claim to the California courts. Under the federal habeas statute, a prisoner generally must give the highest available state court a fair opportunity to consider each claim before seeking federal relief.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the petition because the claims concerning the outdated psychiatric report and consideration of mental-health and substance-abuse issues did not state a valid federal habeas claim. The dismissal was without leave to amend because the newly asserted bias claim was unexhausted. The court instructed that Al-Khafaji should first present that bias claim in the state courts. The court also DENIED a certificate of appealability and directed the clerk to close the case.