Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8688143
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Fowler v. Attorney General of California
No. 8688143 · Decided July 24, 2008
No. 8688143·Ninth Circuit · 2008·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
July 24, 2008
Citation
No. 8688143
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** The State of California, on behalf of Warden William Sullivan, appeals from the district court’s order granting Chris Fowler’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We re *435 view de novo a district court’s decision to grant a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, see Yee v. Duncan, 463 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) , and we reverse. The district court erred when it granted the petition and issued the writ on the basis that the California Board of Prison Terms’ February 10, 2000, denial of parole violated Fowler’s due process rights. See Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127-29 (9th Cir.2006). In determining the issue before us, we follow our prior decisions, which have held that due process requires that there be some evidence to support the decision to deny parole. See Sass, 461 F.3d at 1128-29 ; Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2007) . 1 Here, there was some evidence, the 1994 psychological report showing Fowler’s continued potential for violence and the failure of subsequent psychological reports fully to evaluate the findings of the 1994 report. Because the California Board of Prison Terms’ February 2000 decision denying Fowler parole is supported by some evidence, the state court’s decision rejecting Fowler’s due process claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see also Irons, 505 F.3d at 851 . REVERSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . Sullivan’s argument that clearly established Supreme Court law does not require that there be some evidence is foreclosed by our prior decisions. See United States v. Gay, 967 F.2d 322, 327 (9th Cir. 1992) ("one three-judge panel of this court cannot reconsider or overrule the decision of a prior panel”).
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** The State of California, on behalf of Warden William Sullivan, appeals from the district court’s order granting Chris Fowler’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** The State of California, on behalf of Warden William Sullivan, appeals from the district court’s order granting Chris Fowler’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
02We re *435 view de novo a district court’s decision to grant a 28 U.S.C.
03The district court erred when it granted the petition and issued the writ on the basis that the California Board of Prison Terms’ February 10, 2000, denial of parole violated Fowler’s due process rights.
04In determining the issue before us, we follow our prior decisions, which have held that due process requires that there be some evidence to support the decision to deny parole.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** The State of California, on behalf of Warden William Sullivan, appeals from the district court’s order granting Chris Fowler’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Fowler v. Attorney General of California in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on July 24, 2008.
Use the citation No. 8688143 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.