Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00544-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COREY BURGESS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

HECTOR ALFONSO RIOS, Warden, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00544-SKO-HC

ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION

WITH LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED

PETITION NO LATER THAN THIRTY

(30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

DUE DATE FOR FILING THE FIRST

AMENDED PETITION:

THIRTY (30) DAYS

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SEND

PETITIONER A BLANK PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 2241

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local

Rules 302 and 303. Pending before the Court is the petition,

which was filed on April 9, 2012.

I. Screening the Petition 

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Courts (Habeas Rules) are appropriately applied to

1

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 5 Filed 04/19/12 Page 1 of 7
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

proceedings undertaken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas Rule

1(b). Habeas Rule 4 requires the Court to make a preliminary

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court

must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from

the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court....” Habeas Rule 4;

O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); see also

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Habeas Rule

2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds of relief

available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each

ground; and 3) state the relief requested. Notice pleading is

not sufficient. The petition must instead state facts that point

to a real possibility of constitutional error. Rule 4, Advisory

Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at

420 (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)).

The requirement that the petitioner allege specific facts

and show the relationship of the facts to the claim is consistent

with the purpose of the Habeas Rules, which is to assist the

district court in determining whether the respondent should be

ordered to show cause why the writ should not be granted and to

permit the filing of an answer that satisfies the requirement

that it address the allegations in the petition. Mayle v. Felix,

545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005). Allegations in a petition that are

vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to summary

dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.

1990).

Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas

corpus either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to

2

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 5 Filed 04/19/12 Page 2 of 7
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 respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the

petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule

8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43

(9th Cir. 2001).

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without

leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief

can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440

F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

Here, Petitioner alleges that he is an inmate of the United

States Penitentiary at Atwater, California (USPA) serving a

seventy-seven month sentence imposed in September 2008 in the

Eastern District of Missouri for being a felon in possession of a

firearm. (Pet. 1-2.) Petitioner complains that he suffered a

disciplinary finding made by a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO)

in prison with respect to incident report number 19443315, and

inmate investigation report number 92670, apparently at the

Federal Correctional Institution at Memphis. Petitioner alleges

that the finding was not true and that he suffered excessive

punishment as a result of the finding. (Id. at 3-6.) 

Petitioner further alleges that he received the DHO’s

decision on March 2, 2011, while at “USP Pollock,” was removed

from that location on March 3, 2011, and thereafter was involved

in a transfer process. Therefore, his filing of his appeal of

the DHO’s decision in May 2001 was delayed. Petitioner has

received from the prison authorities no response to his appeal,

which he alleges has impeded his ability to appeal the DHO’s

finding.

///

3

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 5 Filed 04/19/12 Page 3 of 7
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

II. Failure to State Facts Entitling Petitioner to Relief

Relief by way of a writ of habeas corpus extends to a

prisoner in custody under the authority of the United States who

shows that the custody violates the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Although

a federal prisoner who challenges the validity or

constitutionality of his conviction must file a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal prisoner

challenging the manner, location, or conditions of the execution

of a sentence must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861,

864-65 (9th Cir. 2000).

Petitioner appears to be attempting to set forth a claim

that he was denied due process of law in connection with the

disciplinary proceeding. Procedural due process of law requires

that where the state has made good time subject to forfeiture

only for serious misbehavior, prisoners subject to a loss of good

time credits must be given advance written notice of the claimed

violation, a right to call witnesses and present documentary

evidence where it would not be unduly hazardous to institutional

safety or correctional goals, and a written statement of the

finder of fact as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for

disciplinary action taken. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,

563-64 (1974). Confrontation, cross-examination, and counsel are

not required. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 568-70.

Further, where good-time credits are a protected liberty

interest, the decision to revoke credits must be supported by

some evidence in the record. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.

4

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 5 Filed 04/19/12 Page 4 of 7
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

445, 454 (1985). As the Court stated in Hill:

We hold that the requirements of due process are

satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the

prison disciplinary board to revoke good time credits.

This standard is met if “there was some evidence from

which the conclusion of the administrative tribunal

could be deduced....” United States ex rel. Vajtauer v.

Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S., at 106, 47

S.Ct., at 304. Ascertaining whether this standard is

satisfied does not require examination of the entire

record, independent assessment of the credibility of

witnesses, or weighing of the evidence. Instead, the

relevant question is whether there is any evidence in

the record that could support the conclusion reached by

the disciplinary board. See ibid.; United States ex

rel. Tisi v. Tod, 264 U.S. 131, 133-134, 44 S.Ct. 260,

260-261, 68 L.Ed. 590 (1924); Willis v. Ciccone, 506

F.2d 1011, 1018 (CA8 1974).

Id. at 455-56. 

The Constitution does not require that the evidence

logically preclude any conclusion other than the conclusion

reached by the disciplinary board; there need only be some

evidence to ensure that there was some basis in fact for the

decision. Id. at 457. This Court does not make its own

assessment of the credibility of witnesses or re-weigh the

evidence. The Court must instead merely ascertain that the

evidence has some indicia of reliability and, even if meager,

“not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the disciplinary

board were without support or otherwise arbitrary.” Cato v.

Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985)). 

Here, Petitioner has not alleged specific facts that point

to a real possibility of constitutional error in connection with

the disciplinary finding. Petitioner has provided no facts

concerning the nature of the disciplinary charge, the evidence

submitted in support thereof, the process undertaken with respect

5

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 5 Filed 04/19/12 Page 5 of 7
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

to the disciplinary charge, and any penalties imposed as a result

of the finding. Petitioner has not alleged facts pointing to a

real possibility of constitutional error or related those facts

to his claim. The mere fact that petitioner disagrees with the

disciplinary finding or claims generally to have been innocent is

not a sufficient basis on which to claim entitlement to habeas

relief because conclusory allegations, unsupported by a statement

of specific facts, are insufficient to warrant relief. Jones v.

Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir. 1995); James v. Borg, 24

F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994).

Further, considering the lack of information concerning the

underlying disciplinary findings, and in view of Petitioner’s

filing his petition here, it is unclear how the alleged delay in

the administrative appellate process has affected Petitioner’s

rights or presents an independent basis for relief. Accordingly,

Petitioner has not stated a claim that would entitle him to

habeas corpus relief. 

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without

leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief

can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440

F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 

Here, it is possible that Petitioner could state specific

facts pointing to a real possibility of constitutional error in

connection with the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly,

Petitioner will be given an opportunity to state specific facts

in an amended petition.

III. First Amended Petition 

The instant petition must be dismissed for the reasons

6

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 5 Filed 04/19/12 Page 6 of 7
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

stated above. Petitioner will be given an opportunity to file a

first amended petition to cure the deficiencies. Petitioner is

advised that failure to file a petition in compliance with this

order (i.e., a completed petition with cognizable federal claims

clearly stated) within the allotted time will result in a

recommendation that the petition be dismissed and the action be

terminated. Petitioner is advised that the amended petition

should be entitled, “First Amended Petition,” and it must refer

to the case number in this action.

IV. Disposition

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with

leave to amend; and

2) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of

service of this order to file a first amended petition in

compliance with this order; and

3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a

form petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 1:12-cv-00544-AWI-SKO Document 5 Filed 04/19/12 Page 7 of 7