Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05711/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05711-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY C. STITH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PAUL SCHULTZ, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-5711 AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

BACKGROUND

A disciplinary hearing concerning Petitioner was held on May 19, 2004, regarding

events that occurred on December 10, 2002. During the hearing, the Disciplinary Hearing

Officer considered documentary evidence as well as Petitioner’s statements. At the

conclusion of the hearing, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer concluded that Petitioner had

Case 1:04-cv-05711-AWI-WMW Document 8 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 5
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

committed the charged misconduct of assault and with the use of a weapon. The violations

were both considered to be of greatest severity and the Disciplinary Hearing Officer imposed

the following sanctions: 1) disallowance of 80 days Good Conduct Credit; 2) 120 days

disciplinary segregation; 3) loss of telephone privileges for 180 days; and 4) loss of

visitation privileges for one year.

Petitioner now challenges the outcome of the prison disciplinary proceeding.

STANDARD

Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, no state shall

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Prisoners retain

their right to due process subject to the restrictions imposed by the nature of the penal

system. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974).

A prisoner in a prison disciplinary hearing is not entitled to the full array of due

process rights that a defendant possesses in a criminal prosecution. Id. at 556. However, a

prisoner who is accused of serious rules violations and who may be deprived of his or her

good-time credits is entitled to certain minimum procedural protections. Id. at 571-71 n. 9. 

The process due in such a prison disciplinary hearing includes: (1) written

notification of the charges; (2) at least a brief period of time after the notice to prepare for the

hearing; (3) a written statement by the fact-finders as to the evidence relied on and reasons

for the disciplinary action; (4) the inmate facing the charges 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 564, 566,

570. 

In addition, a decision to revoke an inmate’s good-time credit does not comport with

minimum procedural due process requirements unless its underlying findings are supported

by “some evidence.” Superintendant v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). The U.S. Supreme

Court has held that “ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require

Case 1:04-cv-05711-AWI-WMW Document 8 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 5
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

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.” Id. at 455-

56. The Ninth Circuit has further held that there must be “some indicia of reliability of the

information that forms the basis for prison disciplinary actions.” Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d

703, 705 (9th Cir. 1987) (uncorroborated hearsay statement of confidential informant with no

firsthand knowledge is not enough evidence to meet Hill standard.) 

DISCUSSION

In challenging the outcome of the prison disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner contends

that he is actually innocent of the prohibited acts of assault and possession of a weapon. 

Petitioner claims that he was only involved in a simple fist fight and that he was not served

with an incident report within three working days from the time the staff became aware of

the fight. He states that he did not receive an incident report until April 24, 2003, some four

months after the incident, and after he had been transferred to another prison.

Petitioner’s claim that he did not receive an incident report in a timely manner relies

on various time frames which “ordinarily” apply in the prison discipline process, and are

expressly subject to exceptions “as provided in the rules.” Exhibit D to Respondent’s

Answer. Thus, it is not clear whether a violation of the rules governing prison disciplinary

procedures actually occurred in this case. But, even assuming that such a violation occurred, 

this does not establish a Constitutional violation. The minimum due process protections

afforded a prisoner under Wolff include written notification of the charges and at least a

brief period of time after the notice to prepare for the hearing, but do not include notification

of charges within any specific time period. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claim that he did not

receive an incident report within three days provides no basis for habeas corpus relief.

Petitioner’s contention that he is actually innocent of the charges is based on the

claim that he was “only involved in a simple fist fight,” and that no weapon was involved. 

Case 1:04-cv-05711-AWI-WMW Document 8 Filed 08/23/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Petitioner supports this claim with the declaration of the victim of the assault. 

To survive Constitutional scrutiny, the evidence supporting a decision by prison

officials need only have some basis in fact and some indication of reliability. Jancsek v.

Oregon Bd. Of Parole, 833 F.2d 1389, 1390 (9

th Cir. 1987). As Respondent argues, there is

more than ample evidence here to support the finding that Petitioner both committed the

assault and possessed a weapon. As to the assault, Petitioner admits that he was in a fight

and hit the victim in the face. Further, there is no question that the assault resulted in serious

physical injury to the victim. This conduct clearly constitutes assaulting a person under 28

C.F.R. § 541.13, Table 3, Code 101.

There is also substantial evidence that Petitioner possessed a sharpened weapon. The

medical reports received and reviewed by the Disciplinary Hearing Officer showed that the

victim’s injury could not have been caused by a fist, as Petitioner asserts. Rather, the

medical reports indicate that the injuries could only have been produced by a sharpened

instrument. Exhibit C to Respondent’s Answer, 2-3. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claim that he

is factually innocent of the charges provides no basis for habeas corpus relief.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ

of habeas corpus be DENIED and that judgment be entered for Respondent.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

Case 1:04-cv-05711-AWI-WMW Document 8 Filed 08/23/06 Page 4 of 5
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 5

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05711-AWI-WMW Document 8 Filed 08/23/06 Page 5 of 5