Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01290/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01290-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON DAVID YONAI,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SVSP Superintendent Ms. EVANS, 

Respondent. /

No. C 07-1290 PJH (PR)

DENIAL OF LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; DISMISSAL AND

DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison,

has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He

also requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

 The petition is directed to a rules violation decision which resulted in loss of good

time. It thus goes to the execution of petitioner’s sentence, so venue is appropriate here,

where he is confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was found guilty on a rule violation report dated January 23, 2002,

charging him with assault with a deadly weapon. As a consequence he lost 360 days of

good time credit and was given a fourteen month term in the Security Housing Unit

(“SHU”). He contends that with the direct loss of good time plus that lost as a consequence

of being in the SHU, he lost a total of 645 days of good time credit. He contends he has

raised the claims presented here by way of many different petitions and applications to the

state courts.

///

///

Case 4:07-cv-01290-PJH Document 6 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a). It shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant

or person detained is not entitled thereto." Id. § 2243. 

 Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland

v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). A petition must “specify all the grounds for relief” and

set forth “facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the Federal District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

B. Legal Claims

As grounds for federal habeas relief, petitioner asserts that: (1) his conviction of the

rules violation was “illegal” because it was based on false physical evidence, false

testimony, and illegally obtained evidence; (2) his procedural due process rights were

violated when photos which would have proved his innocence were missing; (3) his equal

protection and Miranda rights were violated; (4) he is falsely incarcerated and actually

innocent. 

Petitioner’s first issue does not allege any federal basis for habeas relief, so will be

dismissed. See Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (federal writ of

habeas corpus available"only on the basis of some transgression of federal law binding on

the state courts."). And there is no clearly-established federal law saying that it violates the

constitution to find a prisoner guilty of a rule violation when he actually is innocent, so the

fourth issue also will be dismissed. Cf. Coley v. Gonzalez, 55 F.3d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.

1995) (Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400 (1993), made it clear that there can be no

habeas relief from a conviction based solely on a petitioner's claim of actual innocence). 

///

Case 4:07-cv-01290-PJH Document 6 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

In his second issue petitioner alleges a federal basis for relief, due process, but does

not explain sufficiently what the alleged violation was. Much of his statement of the facts

that support this claim is given up to a contention that the length of his sentence was

affected by the disciplinary proceeding, a contention which the court accepts for purposes

of this order; as to the claim itself, he says only that “my photos that would of proved my

innocence that were supposed to be a part of my C.D.C. 837 Log No. DVI-RC-02-01-0015

dated 1-23-02 were missing during my whole R.V.R. 115 disciplinary hearing for my R.V.R.

Log No. 02-01-23-R.C.A. which resulted in an unfair disciplinary hearing in my bad [sic]

behalf... .” 

In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the Supreme Court held that "the inmate

facing disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to call witnesses and present

documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so will not be unduly

hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals." Id. at 566. It is arguable, at this

stage of the case, that this implies an obligation not to thwart the prisoner’s presentation of

documentary evidence, such as the pictures to which petitioner refers. It would, however,

be impossible for respondent to answer this claim without more explanation of what

happened – what the “C.D.C. 837 Log No. DVI-RC-02-01-0015 dated 1-23-02" is, why it

contained pictures, what the pictures were of, whether petitioner asked for them at the rules

hearing, why petitioner thinks the pictures would establish his innocence, and so on. This

issue will be dismissed with leave to amend to explain in more detail the factual basis for

this claim. See Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (“‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for

the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’”

Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 

In his third issue petitioner contends that his equal protection and Miranda rights

were violated. For the facts in support of this claim he says to “see all of the paperwork in

this federal writ... .” This is insufficient. The court will not rummage through his exhibits

trying to ascertain a constitutional violation. Instead, he must point out the facts which he

contends support his claim. This claim will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Case 4:07-cv-01290-PJH Document 6 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. In view of petitioner’s income and account balance, leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (document 2 on the docket) is DENIED. Petitioner shall pay the five dollar ($5)

filing fee within thirty days of the date of this order or the case will be dismissed. 

2. Issues one and four are DISMISSED.

3. Issues two and three are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND within thirty

days from the date of this order is entered. The amendment must include the caption and

civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED PETITION on the first page. 

Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the final dismissal of this case. . 

4. Petitioner must keep the court informed of any change of address by filing a

separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of Change of Address.” He also must comply

with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of

this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See

Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas

cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\YONAI290.DWL

Case 4:07-cv-01290-PJH Document 6 Filed 07/03/07 Page 4 of 4