Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01848/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01848-2/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

CORVETTE ROBINSON,

Petitioner,

NO. 12-CV-1848-MMA(WVG)

ORDER:

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE;

[Doc. No. 11]

OVERRULING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS;

[Doc. No. 12]

DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

[Doc. No. 1]

DECLINING TO ISSUE

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

v.

DANIEL PARAMO,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

On July 26, 2012, Petitioner Corvette Robinson, a state prisoner proceeding

pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Title 28 of the United

States Code, section 2254. Petitioner does not challenge his underlying conviction

or sentence of seventeen years for transportation of a controlled substance and

possession of a controlled substance. Rather, Petitioner challenges the California

- 1 - 12CV1848

Case 3:12-cv-01848-MMA-WVG Document 16 Filed 04/03/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) September 14, 2011

decision finding him guilty of violating prison rules by possessing a controlled

substance. Specifically, Petitioner contends that he was deprived of good-time

credits in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and the “some

evidence” rule, because there was insufficient evidence for the rules violation. 

Petitioner asserts that 130 days of lost credit should be restored. Respondent filed an

answer to the petition, and Petitioner filed a traverse.

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate William V. Gallo for

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

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

recommending that the petition be denied. See Doc. No. 11. Petitioner timely filed

objections. See Doc. No. 12. Respondent did not file an objection to the Report, but

filed a response to Petitioner’s objections. See Doc. No. 13.

In reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court

“shall 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.” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the pertinent portions of the

record with respect to each of Petitioner’s objections. Petitioner’s objections do not

present new argument and repeat the arguments found in the Petition. Specifically,

he repeats the charge that “some” evidence of a controlled substance did not exist to

support the rules violation finding. However, Judge Gallo accurately discussed the

suspected controlled substance found and the procedures the CDCR used to identify

the substance for disciplinary purposes. The CDCR pharmacist’s identification of

the substance as Lyrica, a Schedule V drug, satisfied California Code of

Regulations, Title 15, section 3290(h)’s required identification procedure before a

- 2 - 12CV1848

Case 3:12-cv-01848-MMA-WVG Document 16 Filed 04/03/13 Page 2 of 4
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

substance may be used in a disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner possessed 14 Lyrica

pills and admitted that he sometimes kept the pills for later use when prison nurses

failed to check whether he had taken the pills on the spot as required by prison rules. 

These facts satisfy the “some evidence” requirement for his conviction and

subsequent denial of good time credits. Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary are

meritless.

Next, Petitioner’s assertion that denial of 130 days of good-time credits was

excessive is unpersuasive. As Judge Gallo notes, 130 days is within the narrow

range allowed by California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3323.

In sum, the Court finds that Judge Gallo identified the correct legal standards,

applied each standard correctly, considered relevant case law, and reached sound

conclusions that this Court has no reason to reject. The Court OVERRULES

Petitioner’s objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its

entirety. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Petition, and a writ of habeas corpus

shall not issue in this case.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

In order to proceed with an appeal, Petitioner must receive a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22; 9th Cir. R. 22-1; Allen v.

Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 950-51 (9th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to the December 1, 2009

amendment to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and 2255 Cases, district

courts are required to rule on the certificate of appealability in the order disposing of

a proceeding adversely to the petitioner or movant, rather than waiting for a notice

of appeal and request for certificate of appealability to be filed. Rule 11(a). 

Generally, a petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right” to warrant a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). For the reasons set forth in the

Report and Recommendation and adopted herein, Petitioner has not made a

- 3 - 12CV1848

Case 3:12-cv-01848-MMA-WVG Document 16 Filed 04/03/13 Page 3 of 4
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

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court

DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 3, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 4 - 12CV1848

Case 3:12-cv-01848-MMA-WVG Document 16 Filed 04/03/13 Page 4 of 4