Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00587/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00587-0/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)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES BREWER,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER,

Respondent.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00587-JDP (HC)

ORDER

SCREENING THE PETITION AND 

OFFERING LEAVE TO AMEND

ECF No. 1

Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254 and alleges that his rights 

were violated when the state courts rejected his habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary 

violation. ECF No. 1 at 4. His petition, for the reasons stated hereafter, appears unexhausted and 

inadequate to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. I will give him an opportunity to amend 

before recommending that this action be dismissed. 

The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 

the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 

Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Petitioner argues that the state superior and appellate courts that considered his habeas 

Case 2:24-cv-00587-KJM-JDP Document 4 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 2
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

petitions operated as a “simple dead end” by incorrectly rejecting his petitions. ECF No. 1 at 4-6. 

As an initial matter, petitioner has not indicated that the claims at issue here were exhausted, as 

they must be before this action can proceed, by being presented to and receiving a decision from 

the California Supreme Court. See Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Second, a federal habeas challenge to a prison disciplinary conviction fails if the conviction was 

supported by some evidence. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). While 

petitioner takes issues with the state courts’ handling of his habeas petitions, the success of this 

action hinges on his challenge to the underlying disciplinary conviction. Having reviewed the 

petition and the attached documents, it appears that the conviction was premised on “some 

evidence,” namely a test of petitioner’s mail that indicated the presence of controlled substances, 

his refusal to provide a urine analysis thereafter and, ultimately, a guilty plea in prison 

disciplinary proceedings. ECF No. 1 at 11-12. I will give petitioner leave to amend to explain 

why this petition should proceed. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner may file an amended petition within thirty days of this order’s entry. If he 

fails to do so, I may recommend that this action be dismissed.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a section 2254 habeas form with this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00587-KJM-JDP Document 4 Filed 07/17/24 Page 2 of 2