Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01287/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01287-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT HERNANDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT AYERS,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 07-1287 MHP (pr)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

INTRODUCTION

Albert Hernandez, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge a prison disciplinary decision. This matter

is now before the court for consideration of the merits of the petition. For the reasons

discussed below, the petition will be denied. 

BACKGROUND

Hernandez is in custody serving a sentence of 25 years to life for a 1980 conviction

for first degree murder, robbery, first degree burglary, and assault with force likely to cause

great bodily injury. His habeas petition does not challenge that conviction, but instead

challenges a 2005 prison disciplinary decision that resulted in a time credit forfeiture. The

only claims remaining for adjudication are Hernandez's claims that the disciplinary decision

violated due process because it was not supported by sufficient evidence and because he was

not allowed to call two inmate witnesses. 

Case 3:07-cv-01287-MHP Document 8 Filed 06/04/08 Page 1 of 6
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

On December 27, 2004, Hernandez was asked to provide a urine sample after drug

paraphernalia was found in the area in front of his cell during a cell search. On January 5,

2005, the laboratory result of the urine test was received; it showed that Hernandez tested

positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. A CDC-115 rule violation report was

issued to Hernandez that day charging him with possession of a controlled substance.

Two disciplinary hearings were held. The first one occurred on February 6-7, 2005. 

Staff witnesses Gonzales and Lelis testified pursuant to Hernandez's request. However, the

two inmate-witnesses Hernandez requested, Butler and Andrade, did not participate in the

hearing because they had paroled from prison. Hernandez was found guilty of possession of

a controlled substance. He filed an inmate appeal; his appeal was partially granted at the

second level because the hearing officer failed to call the inmate-witnesses or document the

attempt to do so or to deny them. The inmate appeal decision required prison officials to reissue the CDC-115 and hold a new hearing.

The CDC-115 was re-issued. Hernandez requested and received an investigative

employee. On April 27, 2005, correctional officer ("C/O") Grace, the investigative officer,

interviewed Hernandez, who again wanted parolees Butler and Andrade. On April 28, 2005,

C/O Grace contacted Butler's parole agent and left a message for the agent to contact Grace

so he could locate Butler or set up a telephone interview with Butler. As of the hearing on

April 29, 2005, Butler's parole agent had not provided the necessary information. C/O Grace

obtained parolee Andrade's telephone number from Andrade's parole agent and contacted

him. C/O Grace interviewed Andrade on the telephone on April 28. Andrade told C/O

Grace he did not remember whether he was present when Hernandez gave his urine sample.

On April 30, 2005, the new hearing was held on the CDC-115, and Hernandez was

again found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. The hearing officer noted on the

record that parolee Andrade had been interviewed by investigative officer Grace and had

stated that he did not remember whether he was present when Hernandez provided his urine

sample. The hearing officer also noted that attempts to reach parolee Butler had been

unsuccessful. The hearing officer wrote that the evidence supporting his finding of guilt

Case 3:07-cv-01287-MHP Document 8 Filed 06/04/08 Page 2 of 6
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

consisted of the information in the incident package, substance abuse testing sheet, and

laboratory report. Specifically, the sample was collected after drug paraphernalia was found

in front of Hernandez's cell, Hernandez voluntarily submitted a urine sample, Hernandez was

not taking any medication that would cause him to test positive for amphetamines or

methamphetamine, the positive drug test, and there was an absence of evidence to support

Hernandez's assertion that the urine test was not done pursuant to standard institutional

procedures. The discipline imposed upon the finding of guilt was a forfeiture of 150 days of

time credits (later reduced to 130 days), a year of mandatory random drug testing, and a 90-

day loss of visiting privileges followed by 90 days of non-contact visits.

Before filing this action, Hernandez filed state habeas petitions. The Marin County

Superior Court rejected Hernandez's petition for failure to establish a prima facie case for

relief. The California Court of Appeal denied Hernandez's petition after respondent

conceded that the credit forfeiture should have been 130 rather than 150 days and corrected

that problem. The California Supreme Court summarily denied Hernandez's habeas petition. 

DISCUSSION

A. Merits Of The Petition

This court may entertain a petition for 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).

The petition may not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits

in state court unless the state court's adjudication of the claim: "(1) resulted in a decision that

was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,

as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that

was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in

the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams (Terry) v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362

(2000).

An inmate in California is entitled to due process before being disciplined when the

discipline imposed will inevitably affect the duration of his sentence. See Sandin v. Conner,

Case 3:07-cv-01287-MHP Document 8 Filed 06/04/08 Page 3 of 6
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

515 U.S. 472, 484, 487 (1995). The process due in such a prison disciplinary proceeding

includes written notice, time to prepare for the hearing, a written statement of decision,

allowance of witnesses and documentary evidence when not unduly hazardous, and aid to the

accused where the inmate is illiterate or the issues are complex. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

U.S. 539, 564-67 (1974). The Due Process Clause only requires that prisoners be afforded

those procedures mandated by Wolff and its progeny; it does not require that a prison comply

with its own, more generous procedures. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1419-20 

(9th Cir. 1994).

The revocation of good-time credits does not comport with the minimum requirements

of procedural due process in Wolff unless the findings of the prison disciplinary decisionmaker are supported by some evidence in the record. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,

454 (1985). There must be "some evidence" from which the conclusion of the decisionmaker could be deduced. Id. at 455. An examination of the entire record is not required nor

is an independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses or weighing of the evidence. Id.

The relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the

conclusion reached by the disciplinary decision-maker. Id. This standard is considerably

lower than that applicable in criminal trials. Id. at 456. The Ninth Circuit additionally has

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, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1987).

The evidence relied upon by the hearing officer in finding Hernandez guilty of the

charge of possession of a controlled substance easily meets Superintendent v. Hill's "some

evidence" standard. Hernandez gave a urine sample that tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Hernandez protested during the disciplinary proceedings about

perceived imperfections in the testing procedures, but did not show at the hearing or here that

any imperfections so compromised the urine test as to make the results worthless. The fact

that Hernandez tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, plus the absence of

any medication that might cause a false positive, provided more than some evidence to

support the finding that he was guilty of being in possession of a controlled substance.

Case 3:07-cv-01287-MHP Document 8 Filed 06/04/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

Hernandez also failed to establish a due process violation based on the absence of

witnesses Butler and Andrade. First, Hernandez offers no explanation as to why he wanted

either of the former inmates to appear at his hearing, such as the expected substance of the

testimony from either witness that would have been helpful to him. The absence of any

information about the value of these former inmates' testimony is particularly glaring in light

of the Marin County Superior Court's decision pointing out this very problem when it denied

Hernandez's habeas petition. See Resp. Exh. 11, p. 3. Second, officials did not actually

refuse to contact either of these parolees. Cf. Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1079-80

(9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied. 543 U.S. 825 (2004) (due process violated where hearing officer

failed to offer a convincing explanation for why he did not allow witnesses and failed to

follow state regulation requiring him to document his reasons for refusing to grant inmate's

request for a witness). Former inmate Butler could not be located, although prison officials

documented reasonable efforts to contact him through his parole officer. Former inmate

Andrade was located and interviewed by telephone, but had no recollection of Hernandez's

urine test. Due process was not violated when prison officials did not arrange for the

presence (by telephone or in person) at the hearing of the former inmate who did not even

recall the incident in question. The inmate's right to present a defense is not absolute and

prison officials retain "the necessary discretion to keep the hearing within reasonable limits." 

Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566. Hernandez has not shown that his right to due process was violated

when these two former inmates did not testify at his hearing. 

Hernandez's right to due process was not violated by prison officials' decision to find

him guilty of possession of a controlled substance and to assess him a credit forfeiture of 130

days. He is not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus.

B. Timeliness Of Petition

“A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus

by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). 

A habeas petition by a state prisoner challenging a decision of an administrative body, such

as the disciplinary decision here, is covered by the statute and the limitations period starts to

Case 3:07-cv-01287-MHP Document 8 Filed 06/04/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

run from “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have

been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D); Shelby v.

Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Respondent contends that Hernandez missed the statute of limitations deadline by

seven days. Although Hernandez fails to contest this assertion, there appear to be two

problems with it. First, respondent uses the hearing date of April 30, 2005, as the date on

which the factual predicate of the claim could have been discovered, but the CDC-115 with

the written decision was not given to Hernandez until twelve days later on May 12, 2005. 

See Resp. Exh. 8. The record does not establish that Hernandez was informed of the

disciplinary decision and credit loss on April 30 rather than May 12. Assuming that he did

not learn of the decision until the written decision was handed to him on May 12, his petition

was timely filed. Second, respondent fails to make allowance for the prisoner mailbox rule,

which requires the court to deem a pro se prisoner's petition filed as of the date he gives it to

prison officials to mail to the court rather than the date on which it is stamped "filed" at the

court. See Stillman v. Lamarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, that means that

the federal petition was deemed filed five days earlier than respondent asserts: it was deemed

filed when mailed on March 1, 2007 (as evidenced by the postmark) rather than when it was

stamped "filed" on March 6, 2007. Allowing for these extra 12- and 5-day periods, the

petition was filed before the expiration of the one-year limitations period. 

CONCLUSION

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED on the merits. The clerk shall close

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 3, 2008 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01287-MHP Document 8 Filed 06/04/08 Page 6 of 6