Adkinsv.Carey

United States District Court, E.D. CaliforniaMar 21, 2006
No. 2:05-CV-1501-RRB-PAN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2006)

No. 2:05-CV-1501-RRB-PAN P.

March 21, 2006


ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION


RALPH BEISTLINE, District Judge

I. Introduction

Before the Court are Respondents Tom Carey, et al. ("Respondents") with a Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge's Ruling (Docket No. 12). The request is opposed at Docket No. 16.

The underlying issue is whether California's parole scheme creates a federally protected interest in parole release — absent the finding of certain conditions. In addressing this matter, the Court notes that the Ninth Circuit has previously determined that it does. McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir. 2002). II. Standard of Review

Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law."

III. Discussion

Upon review of the entire file, and having listened to oral argument in Sass v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 376 F. Supp. 2d 975 (E.D. Cal. 2005), which is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the Court finds that the magistrate judge's ruling was not "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." E.D. Local Rule 72-303(f).

Moreover, the Court is particularly persuaded by Blankenship v. Kane, 2006 WL 515627, *3 (N.D. Cal. 2006); wherein, the district court determined:

Because the Ninth Circuit specifically held in McQuillion that California's parole scheme creates a federally protected liberty interest, and because [In re Dannenberg, 104 P.3d 783 (Cal. 2005)] did not address this issue, the Court rejects Respondent's argument that there is no protected liberty interest in parole for California inmates.
See also Thompson v. Carey, 2005 WL 3287503 (E.D. Cal 2005) ("[R]espondent's motion to dismiss on grounds that petitioner does not have a liberty interest in parole should be denied."). IV. Conclusion

Consequently, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge (Docket No. 11), filed on February 24, 2006, is hereby AFFIRMED.