Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01856/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01856-0/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 - 06cv1856

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANFORD PAUL BRYANT,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06-1856-JM(LSP)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS (5-1)

AND SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

v.

L. SCRIBNER,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.

Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition. Petitioner

has filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court, having

reviewed the documents filed by the parties, and GOOD CAUSE

APPEARING, HEREBY DENIES Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss and sets a

briefing schedule.

 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 11, 2006, Petitioner filed his Petition. On

October 27, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition.

Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was due on 

November 20, 2006. However, on November 22, 2006, Petitioner filed

a First Amended Petition. Petitioner’s original Petition contains

Case 3:06-cv-01856-JM-LSP Document 16 Filed 04/12/07 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

1

Respondent’s Response to the SAP reiterates the arguments made in his

Motion to Dismiss the original Petition, noting that “A comparison of the initial

Petition with the Second Amended Petition reflects that they are substantially

similar, except that Petitioner has alleged in the Second Amended Petition further

background facts regarding the challenged disciplinary hearing.” (Respondent’s

Response to Second Amended Petition, at 2) The Court agrees with this

characterization.

- 2 - 06cv1856

three claims. But his First Amended Petition contains only one

claim. Therefore, on December 5, 2006, the Court ordered Petitioner

to file a Second Amended Petition (hereafter “SAP”) that contained

all the claims which he intended to bring in this action. On

December 12, 2006, Petitioner filed an Opposition to Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss the original Petition.

On December 22, 2006, Petitioner filed a SAP. On January 19,

2007, Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s SAP.1

On February 21, 2007, Petitioner filed a Response to Respondent’s

Response to the Second Amended Petition.

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Petitioner’s SAP contains the following claims that challenge

the validity of a prison disciplinary hearing at which he was found

guilty as charged:

1. Petitioner was denied his due process rights to all nonconfidential reports in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution. In this claim, Petitioner alleges that

his procedural due process rights were violated by prison officials’

failure to disclose to him all non-confidential reports required

from the arresting official and other employees involved in the

incident for which he was charged.

2. Petitioner was denied due process by the disciplinary hearing

officer basing Petitioner’s guilt on a falsified report in violation

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In

Case 3:06-cv-01856-JM-LSP Document 16 Filed 04/12/07 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

2

The Court does not express any opinion regarding the validity or merits of

Petitioner’s claims.

- 3 - 06cv1856

this claim, Petitioner alleges that his substantive due process

rights were violated when the disciplinary hearing officer found him

guilty based on falsified evidence.

3. Petitioner was denied due process by the failure of the

Investigating Employee to collect documentary evidence from staff

involved and introducing a false report of inculpatory evidence in

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. In this claim, Petitioner alleges that since his

housing status prevented him from conducting his own investigation

for his defense at the disciplinary hearing, the Investigating

Employee assigned to assist Petitioner failed to fulfill his duties.

Respondent argues that the SAP fails to present a claim for

violation of federal due process rights in that Petitioner refers to

only California administrative rules and regulations in his claims.

Petitioner argues that while he cites to California administrative

rules and regulations, Respondent’s failure to adhere to those rules

and regulations violated his due process rights.

The Court agrees with Petitioner. The administrative rules and

regulations to which Petitioner refers appear to have been

promulgated so that, if followed, Respondent’s actions would comport

with due process in disciplinary matters. That those rules and

regulations may have been disregarded or circumvented may give rise

to due process violations. As a result, Petitioner has made prima

facie claims of violations of his due process rights.2 

Further, Respondent argues on the merits, that Petitioner is

not entitled to the relief he seeks because he was afforded all the

Case 3:06-cv-01856-JM-LSP Document 16 Filed 04/12/07 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 - 06cv1856

process to which he was due at the disciplinary hearing. However,

this argument is more properly presented in an Answer to the SAP,

not in a Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, Respondent’s Motion to

Dismiss is DENIED.

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

 Respondent shall file and serve an Answer to the Petition, and

a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Such Answer,

pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases no later than

June 1, 2007. At the time the Answer is filed, Respondent shall

lodge with the Court all records bearing on the merits of

Petitioner’s claims. The lodgments shall be accompanied by a notice

of lodgment which shall be captioned “Notice of Lodgment in 28

U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus Case — To Be Sent to Clerk’s Office.”

Respondent shall not combine separate pleadings, orders or other

items into a combined lodgment entry. Each item shall be numbered

separately and sequentially. 

 Petitioner may file a Traverse to matters raised in the Answer

no later than July 2, 2007. Any Traverse by Petitioner (a) shall

state whether Petitioner admits or denies each allegation of fact

contained in the Answer; (b) shall be limited to facts or arguments

responsive to matters raised in the Answer; and c) shall not raise

new grounds for relief that were not asserted in the Petition.

Grounds for relief withheld until the Traverse will not be

considered. No Traverse shall exceed ten (10) pages in length

absent advance leave of Court for good cause shown.

 A request by a party for an extension of time within which to

file any of the pleadings required by this Order should be made in

advance of the due date of the pleading, and the Court will grant

Case 3:06-cv-01856-JM-LSP Document 16 Filed 04/12/07 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 - 06cv1856

such a request only upon a showing of good cause. Any such request

shall be accompanied by a declaration under penalty of perjury

explaining why an extension of time is necessary.

 Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, this case shall be

deemed submitted on the day following the date Petitioner’s Traverse

is due.

Every document delivered to the Court must include a

certificate of service attesting that a copy of such document was

served on opposing counsel (or on the opposing party, if such party

is not represented by counsel). Any document delivered to the Court

without a certificate of service will be returned to the submitting

party and will be disregarded by the Court.

DATED: April 12, 2007

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01856-JM-LSP Document 16 Filed 04/12/07 Page 5 of 5