Valdivia

Valdivia v. Davis

Good Law
206 F. Supp. 2d 1068·2002 WL 1301378
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 14, 2002CIV. S-94-671 LKK/GGHCalifornia5,738 words

Opinion

Opinion

Karlton, J.

ORDER

Plaintiffs sue the Governor of the State of California, and various state correctional officials for allegedly maintaining parole revocation procedures which violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs now move for partial summary judgment on their claim that the State’s unitary parole revocation hearing system is unconstitutional. I resolve the matter on the pleadings and evidence filed herein and after oral argument.

I.

FACTS

Under California’s system, a.parole officer can impose a hold- if the officer concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe the parolee has violated a condition of his parole and is a danger to himself, a danger to the person or-property of anoth er, or may abscond. A parole hold authorizes the detention of a parolee charged with an alleged parole violation pending a parole revocation hearing. The parole officer is not required to obtain an arrest warrant prior to placing the hold and taking the parolee into custody. Within seven days after detention pursuant to the parole hold, the parolee must be notified of the reasons for the hold.

As noted, California’s process does not provide for a preliminary revocation…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.