Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06569/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06569-2/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 This information is derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Respondent’s answer to the petition, and 1

Petitioner’s traverse to Respondent’s answer.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 CARMON WARREN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

R. N. RUNNELS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-CV-6569 AWI LJO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND1

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections pursuant to

a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, following his conviction by jury

trial on March 22, 1999, of second degree robbery. See Exhibit A, Respondent’s Answer (hereinafter

“Answer”). On May 21, 1999, Petitioner was sentenced to serve a determinate term of nineteen years

in state prison. Id.

With this petition, Petitioner does not challenge his underlying conviction and sentence.

Rather, he challenges a prison disciplinary hearing held on December 24, 2001, in which Petitioner

Case 1:04-cv-06569-LJO-LJO Document 20 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

was found guilty of indecent exposure. See Exhibit 3, Answer. Petitioner was assessed a ninety (90)

day loss of credits and thirty (30) day loss of privileges. Id. Petitioner was advised he could appeal

the decision.

Petitioner then appealed the decision to the second level. At this second level of review,

Petitioner’s appeal was partially granted. See Exhibit D, Answer. The RVR was ordered to be reissued and re-heard. Id. On June 5, 2002, the matter was reduced to an informational chrono in the

interests of justice. See Exhibit E, Answer. 

On May 9, 2003, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Kings County

Superior Court. See Exhibit F, Answer. The superior court denied the petition on September 23,

2003, finding the action taken by prison authorities in reducing the serious RVR to an informational

chrono was appropriate. Id. Petitioner then filed petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the California

Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court. The petitions were summarily denied. See

Exhibits G and H, Answer. 

On November 17, 2004, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner claims he was not afforded due process during the disciplinary hearing. On May 26, 2005,

Respondent filed an answer to the petition. Respondent contends Petitioner fails to state a claim.

Petitioner filed a traverse to Respondent’s answer on June 27, 2005. 

DISCUSSION

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody pursuant

to a judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,

375 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by the U.S.

Constitution. Petitioner’s claims for relief arise out of a disciplinary hearing at Corcoran State

Prison, California, which is located within the jurisdiction of this Court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a),

2241(d). If a constitutional violation has resulted in the loss of time credits, such violation affects the

duration of a sentence, and the violation may be remedied by way of a petition for writ of habeas

corpus. Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9 Cir. 1990). th

In this case, Petitioner claims constitutional violations occurred in the disciplinary hearing

Case 1:04-cv-06569-LJO-LJO Document 20 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

process. However, the record is clear that the serious Rules Violation Report was dismissed in the

interest of justice. An informational chrono was placed in Petitioner’s file, and Petitioner claims the

placement of this chrono in his file violates his due process rights. However, as Respondent points

out, Petitioner alleges no specific harm resulting from the alleged violations. See James v. Borg, 24

F.3d 20, 29 (9 Cir. 1994) ("Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of th

specific facts do not warrant habeas relief."); Campbell v. Wood 18 F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir.1994),

citing Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir.1970) ("An evidentiary hearing is not

required on allegations that are "conclusory and wholly devoid of specifics.'"); Jones v. Gomez, 66

F.3d 199, 204-05 (9 Cir.1995) . The dismissal of the RVR invalidated the punishment; thus, th

Petitioner has not suffered a loss of good time credits. The placement of an informational chrono has

no effect on the length of his incarceration. Accordingly, Respondent is correct in arguing that

Petitioner’s challenges do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

be DENIED. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter

judgment.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge, pursuant to

the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) court days (plus three days for

mailing) after being served with the Findings and Recommendation, 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." Any reply to the objections shall

be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days for mailing) after service of the

objections. 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: February 1, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06569-LJO-LJO Document 20 Filed 02/01/07 Page 3 of 3