Robert Mendoza v. Robert Hernandez
Robert MENDOZA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Robert HERNANDEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- M. James Lorenz (district judge)
- Outcome
- reversed — REVERSED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stephen R. Reinhardt (author), James S. Hawkins, Cogan
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT MENDOZA, No. 08-55824 Petitioner - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:05-CV-01938-L-NLS v. MEMORANDUM * ROBERT HERNANDEZ, Warden, Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 5, 2011 ** Pasadena, California Before: REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and COGAN, District Judge.*** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation. Warden Robert J. Hernandez appeals the grant of Robert Mendoza’s habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2553. We reverse.
Federal due process requires only that a prisoner seeking parole receive an opportunity to be heard, notification of the reasons for any denial, and advance access to the record. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862 (2011); Pearson v. Muntz, --- F.3d ----, No. 08-55278, 2011 WL 1238007 (9th Cir. 2011). The parties agree that Mendoza was afforded this constitutionally adequate process.
The district court did not have the benefit of these subsequent decisions, which now compel a denial of Mendoza’s petition.
REVERSED.