Haggard v. Curry
631 F.3d 931
9th Cir.2010Background
- Haggard was convicted in California state court in 1979 of kidnapping for robbery and received a seven-to-life sentence.
- The California Board of Parole Hearings denied parole on thirteen occasions, with the thirteenth denial in February 2004 citing current dangerousness and risk to public safety.
- The Board relied on factors including the calculated nature of the offense, criminal history, negative institutional behavior, divergent psychological assessments, and need for stress-management skills.
- Haggard challenged the denial in state court, which upheld the Board, finding some evidence supported the decision and that relevant factors were considered; higher state courts also denied relief.
- After exhausting state remedies, Haggard filed a federal habeas petition; the district court granted relief, ordering the Board to set a parole date and release him pending appeal.
- The state appealed and sought a stay; the Ninth Circuit granted a stay, concluding the district court’s relief exceeded California’s defined liberty interest and that state law requires a new parole-suitability determination rather than immediate release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stay was appropriate given the liberty interest scope | Haggard argues release pending appeal is permissible under federal habeas presumptions. | State contends release exceeds the California liberty interest and should await a new parole decision. | Stay appropriate; district court erred in granting release beyond the state-created liberty interest. |
| Whether the district court correctly applied Prather to limit relief to a new parole-suitability determination, not release | Haggard should be released pending reconsideration if due process was violated. | Prather confines relief to a new Board determination, not immediate release. | Prather limits relief to a new parole-suitability determination; not release on parole. |
| Whether the district court erred in viewing the Board's denial as failing the some-evidence standard | District court independently reviewed the record and found no some-evidence support. | Some-evidence standard is a state-created procedural protection that California must honor; district court overstepped. | We treat some-evidence as part of the state-created liberty interest and applicable, but relief is limited to new parole proceedings per Prather. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (some evidence standard part of California liberty interest in parole)
- Pearson v. Muntz, 606 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2010) (framework for reviewing parole-denial habeas claims under California law)
- Pirtle v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 611 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2010) (California's liberty interest in parole encompasses some-evidence requirement)
- In re Prather, 50 Cal.4th 238 (Cal. 2010) (state's parole power; not entitled to release if some-evidence standard not met; remand for new parole determination)
- In re Lawrence, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 169, 190 P.3d 535 (Cal. 2008) (some evidence standard as procedural protection in parole review)
- In re Shaputis, 44 Cal.4th 1241, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 213, 190 P.3d 573 (Cal. 2008) ( reiterates some-evidence standard in California parole review)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979) (due-process framework for parole decisions; no inherent right to parole)