Michael Victory v. California Board of Parole Hearings, et al.
DID DEFENDANTS ENGAGE IN A SUB-ROSA POLICY THAT SYSTEMICALLY
AND/OR INDIVIDUALLY IMPOSE PRE-DETERMINED & PRO FORMA DECISIONS
DENYING PAROLE BY A QUASI-JUDICIAL PANEL THAT IS NOT AN IMPARTIAL
NEUTRAL DECISION-MAKER TOWARDS 99.6% OF A CLASS OF PLAINTIFFS
APPEARING AT THEIR INITIAL PAROLE HEARINGS IN CONFLICT WITH
MURCHISON (1955, USSC), LARKIN (1975, USSC), McCLURE (1982, USSC),
BALISOK (1997, USSC), PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONST. ARTICLE
1. §§ 7, 151 24 AND THE UNITED STATES CONST. 5TH, 6TH AND 14TH
AMENDMENTS?
DOES CALIFORNIA'S PENAL STATUTE §5011(b) AND CALIFORNIA CODE OF
REGS. §2236 CREATE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT
PROHIBIT COMPELLING A LIFE TERM PAROLEE TO ADMIT GUILT AND BE. A
WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF CONFLICT WITH GRIFFIN (1965, USSC)I
GREENHOLTZ (1979, USSC), MURPHY (1984, USSC),. SWARTFIOUT (2011,
USSC) AND THE CALIFORNIA CONST. ARTICLE 1. §§ 7, 15, 24 AND THE
UNITED STATES CONST. 5TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS?
DID THE USCA DECISION ERRONEOUSLY BAR PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS THAT
RAISED BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS AS BEING
BARRED UNDER A "SOME EVIDENCE" OR "AS APPLIED ANALYSIS"
PURSUANT TO HECK (1994, USSC) AND BUTTERFIELD (1997, 9THCIRJ;
CONFLICT WITH WILKINSON (2005, USSC), SKINNER (20111 USSC),
SWARTHOUT (2011, USSC) AND NETTLES (2016, 9TH CIR.), WHEN
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS DID NOT RELY ON "SOME EVIDENCE" OR A REMEDY
THAT WOULD RESULT IN AN ORDER FOR "IMMEDIATE OR SPEEDIER RELEASE
INTO THE COMMUNITY."?
DID THE USCA PANEL'S RELIANCE ON THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE
ERRONEOUSLY BAR PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS RAISED UNDER THE DOCTRINES
OF: (1) inootness; (2). capable of repetition yet evading review;
(3) res judicata; (4) collateral estoppel; (5) law of the trial;
and (6) harmless error; CONFLICT WITH BROWN (1953, USSC), SIBRON
(19(58, USSC), CHAPMAN (1967, USSC),. CHAMBERS (1973, USSC) AND
BRECHT (1993, USSC) PURSUANT TO BOTH THE CALIFORNIA CONST. ART.
1. §§ 7, 15, 24, 28(d) AND THE UNITED STATES CONST. 5TH AND 14TH
Did defendants engage in a policy denying parole to a class of plaintiffs?