Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00808/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00808-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE BANNER,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13cv808-MMA-BGS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 11]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS;

[Doc. No. 16]

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS;

[Doc. No. 1]

DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

G.J. JANDA, WARDEN,

Respondent.

Petitioner Lawrence Banner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (“petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. Doc. No. 1. Petitioner challenges prison disciplinary proceedings in which

he was found guilty of conspiracy to introduce a controlled substance with intent to

distribute in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3016c. 

Specifically, Petitioner alleges violations of his procedural and substantive due

process rights. Respondent answered the petition, and Petitioner filed a Traverse. 

Doc. Nos. 6, 10. 

- 1 - 13cv808-MMA-BGS

Case 3:13-cv-00808-MMA-BGS Document 17 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal

for preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Civil Local Rule HC.2. Judge Skomal issued a well-reasoned and thorough

Report recommending the Court deny the petition. Doc. No. 11. 

Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), the Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge].” 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir.

1989). Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 16. 

Petitioner objects on two grounds. First, Petitioner contends that he was not

afforded a full and fair hearing, and therefore his due process rights were violated. 

However, as Judge Skomal correctly found, the record reflects that Petitioner

received advance written notice of the charge, an opportunity to call

witnesses—which he declined in writing prior to the hearing or was otherwise

denied—and a written statement explaining the evidence against him. Further, a

hearing was held on August 19, 2011. As such, Petitioner was not denied procedural

due process. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Second, Petitioner

asserts that he was found guilty based on insufficient evidence because the prison

officials did not confirm the field test results in a laboratory, as required by

California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3290(f). Petitioner, however,

misconstrues the federal requirements for due process. “[D]ue process in this context

requires only that there be some evidence to support the findings made in the

disciplinary hearing.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985). Here, the

record reflects that a prison official found the bindle on Petitioner during a body

search; that Petitioner admitted possessing a bindle of “dope;” and that the bindle

contained eight smaller, individually wrapped pouches. This evidence could support

the prison board’s finding of guilty of conspiracy to introduce a controlled substance

- 2 - 13cv808-MMA-BGS

Case 3:13-cv-00808-MMA-BGS Document 17 Filed 05/15/14 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with intent to distribute. See id. at 455–56 (“[T]he relevant question is whether there

is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the

disciplinary board.”). 

Accordingly, the Court concludes Judge Skomal issued an accurate report and

well-reasoned recommendation that the petition be denied. The Court

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS the Report and

Recommendation in its entirety. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s petition with

prejudice.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

 Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that “the

district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final

order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability is not issued unless

there is “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). Under this standard, a petitioner must show that reasonable jurists could

debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that

the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003), quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation and incorporated

by reference herein, the Court finds that this standard has not been met and therefore

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this case.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 15, 2014

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv808-MMA-BGS

Case 3:13-cv-00808-MMA-BGS Document 17 Filed 05/15/14 Page 3 of 3