Gaddy v. Horn

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations and dismissed Michael Gaddy’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition with prejudice. The court concluded that his claim concerning the timing of a California parole suitability hearing did not support federal habeas relief and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. The petition did not state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief because the challenge to the timing of a parole suitability hearing did not sound in habeas and was clearly frivolous.
2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed with prejudice.
3. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Gaddy did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and reasonable jurists would not debate the court's resolution.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Gaddy's claim concerning the timing of a California parole suitability hearing stated a cognizable federal habeas claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
2. Whether the petition should be summarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
3. Whether Gaddy was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed