Geray v. Shaffer, 3:20-cv-05383

Petitioner Jason Geray (state prisoner) filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ denial of parole.
Geray alleged due-process violations: denial for the same reason two years in a row and lack of available rehabilitative programming due to COVID-19.
The Sacramento County Superior Court denied Geray’s state petition, stating the Board denied parole because the crime was violent, he had a prior record of serious criminality, and his prison disciplinary record and minimal programming showed insufficient reform. Geray attached that order but not the Board transcript.
Respondent moved to dismiss the federal petition, arguing federal due process was satisfied.
The district court applied Swarthout v. Cooke and related precedent: because Geray was given an opportunity to be heard and a statement of reasons, he received the process due under the federal Constitution.
The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of parole violated federal due process because Board relied on same reason two years in a row and noted need for more rehabilitation (unavailable due to COVID)	Geray: repeated reason and lack of programming rendered the denial procedurally unfair and arbitrary	Respondent: Board provided an opportunity to be heard and a statement of reasons; that satisfies federal due process under Cooke	Court: No federal due-process violation; procedural requirements satisfied, so federal habeas relief unavailable
Whether federal court may review state-law "some evidence" challenges to parole denials (citing In re Ryner)	Geray: the Board’s decision was speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported by evidence (invoking Ryner)	Respondent: Ryner is state-law authority; federal habeas is limited to federal constitutional claims	Court: Federal court must follow Cooke; it cannot entertain state-law-only claims about sufficiency of evidence

Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011) (holding federal due process in parole context requires only an opportunity to be heard and a statement of reasons)
Miller v. Or. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision, 642 F.3d 711 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining Cooke limits federal due-process review to procedural protections)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas review is limited to violations of the Constitution or federal law)
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982) (federal habeas is not a vehicle for correcting state-law errors)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for granting a certificate of appealability)
In re Ryner, 196 Cal. App. 4th 533 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (state appellate decision applying "some evidence" review to parole/Governor reversal decisions)