Kenneth Pearson v. Madelene Muntz

Bad Law
606 F.3d 606·10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6392·2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10481
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 24, 201008-55728California2,681 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER AND OPINION

OPINION

California state prisoner Kenneth Pearson filed an action for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court on September 22, 2005, asserting that the Governor, in reversing the Parole Board, violated his due process rights by denying him parole absent “some evidence” supporting the decision. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, which the district court adopted in full, noted that “the last reasoned state court opinions upholding the Governor’s reversal of the[Parole] Board’s finding of Petitioner’s parole suitability rested on the sole ground of Petitioner’s commitment offense.” The district court determined that the circumstances of the commitment offense did not alone constitute “some evidence” supporting the Governor’s decision, and that the state court decisions upholding the denial of parole were based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. Accordingly, the court granted the habeas petition and issued an order requiring the State to release Pearson within thirty days. The State appealed and filed an emergency motion to stay the district court’s order.

In support of its motion for a stay, the State…

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.