Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00634/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00634-1/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)

---

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

 

MICHAEL MITCHELL,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 13-cv-0634-DMS-MDD

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE:

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS [ECF No. 6]

vs.

JEFFREY BEARD, Secretary,

Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States 

District Judge Dana M. Sabraw pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and

Local Civil Rule 72.1(d)(1) of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California. For the reasons set forth herein, the

Court RECOMMENDS the Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Michael Mitchell (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner currently

incarcerated by the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility

(“Donovan”) in San Diego County, California. (ECF No. 9 at 1). 

Petitioner was convicted of attempted murder and robbery and was

sentenced to an indeterminate life term. (ECF No. 1 at 50). Petitioner

does not challenge his underlying conviction. Instead, Petitioner

- 1 - 13-cv-0634-DMS-MDD

Case 3:13-cv-00634-DMS-MDD Document 10 Filed 08/06/13 Page 1 of 7
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

challenges CDCR’s finding that he is guilty of a rule violation. (Id. at 10).

Petitioner was implicated in a scheme to introduce narcotics into

Donovan on October 30, 2010. (See ECF No. 1 at 122). On November 12,

2010, Petitioner received a Rules Violation Report, alleging Petitioner

introduced controlled substances into the penal institution for

distribution in violation of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3016(c). (Id. at 121). 

On January 18, 2011, Petitioner was afforded a hearing regarding his

alleged rules violation. (Id. at 122). After reviewing the evidence, the

Senior Hearing Officer found Petitioner guilty. (Id. at 125). Because

Petitioner was not notified of the charges against him within 15 days of

the incident, Petitioner did not forfeit any days of good-time credit

(“credit”) for the offense.1

 (Id.). However, pursuant to Cal. Code Regs.

tit. 15, § 3315(f)(5)(H), Petitioner lost all visiting privileges for 365 days,

and all contact visiting privileges for the following 730 days. (Id.). 

Petitioner was also required to undergo one year of mandatory random

drug testing. (Id.). The Senior Hearing Officer reported that Petitioner

was advised of his right to appeal. (Id.).

On February 18, 2011, Petitioner filed a “Second Level Appeal.” 

(See ECF No. 1 at 134). On April 22, 2011, this appeal was denied. (Id.). 

On July 12, 2011, Petitioner filed a “Third Level Appeal.” (Id. at 132). 

On February 16, 2012, this appeal was also denied, with a slight

1

 According to Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3315(f)(3), an inmate found

guilty of a serious rules violation shall be assessed a credit forfeiture

pursuant to § 3323. However, when prison officials do not notify a prisoner

of the charges against him within 15 days of discovering information leading

to the charge, they may not issue a loss of credits. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15,

§ 3320(a). Here, the Senior Hearing Officer admits a failure to notify

Petitioner within 15 days, and thus he did not assess Petitioner any loss of

credit. (ECF No. 1 at 147). 

- 2 - 13-cv-0634-DMS-MDD

Case 3:13-cv-00634-DMS-MDD Document 10 Filed 08/06/13 Page 2 of 7
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

modification to the disciplinary decision.2 (Id. at 137-38). This

modification did not include a loss of credits. (See id.). 

After exhausting his administrative remedies, Petitioner filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus in San Diego County Superior Court on

July 16, 2012. (See ECF No. 1 at 50). Petitioner alleged that the Senior

Hearing Officer violated his due process rights when he denied Petitioner

access to evidence used at the hearing, and denied his request to call live

witnesses. (Id. at 60-61). On August 23, 2012, the petition was denied. 

(Id. at 50-53). 

On October 16, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus in the California Court of Appeal. (ECF No. 1 at 47). On

November 30, 2012, the petition was denied. (Id. at 43). On December

17, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the

California Supreme Court. (Id. at 31). On January 23, 2013, the petition

was denied. (Id. at 35).

On March 15, 2013, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the instant

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

No. 1). Petitioner alleges three grounds for habeas relief. (Id.). First,

Petitioner alleges that the Senior Hearing Officer violated Petitioner’s

Fourteenth Amendment due process rights when he found Petitioner

guilty of introducing narcotics into Donovan, denied Petitioner access to

evidence used at the disciplinary hearing, and did not allow Petitioner to

2

 The third level reviewer expressed overall agreement with the

disciplinary decision, but noted that Petitioner should have also been

assigned to Narcotics Anonymous classes pursuant to Cal. Code Regs. tit.

15, § 3315(f)(5)(J)(1), and altered the disposition accordingly. (ECF No. 1

at 137-38).

- 3 - 13-cv-0634-DMS-MDD

Case 3:13-cv-00634-DMS-MDD Document 10 Filed 08/06/13 Page 3 of 7
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

call witnesses at the hearing.3 (See Id. at 6-15). Second, Petitioner

alleges that the consequences of the disciplinary action constituted cruel

and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (See Id.

at 15, 20-22). Third, Petitioner claims that the Superior Court erred by

failing to grant his state petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Id. at 16-19). 

On May 21, 2013, Respondent moved to dismiss the Petition for

failure to allege a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (ECF No. 6). 

On June 21, 2013, Petitioner filed a Response in Opposition. (ECF No.

9).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints

related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Rev. Stat. § 1979, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750

(2004). A state inmate may seek federal habeas relief only on the

grounds that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the Unites States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The essence of §

2254 “is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that

custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). In contrast, a

civil rights action, under § 1983, “is [the] proper remedy for a state

prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his

prison life.” Id. at 499. In Preiser, the Supreme Court held “that when a

state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical

imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is

3

 It also appears that Petitioner asserts claims on behalf of his mother. 

However, “a party must generally assert his own legal rights and interests,

and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third

parties.” Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 129 (2004). 

- 4 - 13-cv-0634-DMS-MDD

Case 3:13-cv-00634-DMS-MDD Document 10 Filed 08/06/13 Page 4 of 7
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

entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that

imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”4

 Id. at

500.

 The Ninth Circuit has determined that “habeas jurisdiction is

proper where a challenge to prison conditions would, if successful,

necessarily accelerate the prisoner's release.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334

F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876

(9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, (habeas petition proper where prisoner

alleges credits withheld by prison officials). “[H]abeas jurisdiction is

absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a

prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner's sentence.” 

Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 859.

IV. DISCUSSION

Petitioner alleges three grounds for habeas relief in his petition. 

(ECF No. 1). First, Petitioner alleges that the Senior Hearing Officer

violated Petitioner’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights when he

found Petitioner guilty of introducing narcotics into Donovan, denied

Petitioner access to evidence used at the disciplinary hearing, and did not

allow Petitioner to call witnesses at the hearing. (Id. at 6-15). Second,

Petitioner alleges that the consequences of the disciplinary action

constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. (Id. at 15, 20-22). Third, Petitioner claims that the

4

 The Court specifically withheld decision on whether a habeas petition

was an appropriate alternative remedy for a Petitioner who contends that

the conditions of confinement, not the fact or duration of confinement,

violate federal law. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500 (stating that “[W]e need not in

this case explore the appropriate limits of habeas corpus as an alternative

remedy to a proper action under § 1983.”).

- 5 - 13-cv-0634-DMS-MDD

Case 3:13-cv-00634-DMS-MDD Document 10 Filed 08/06/13 Page 5 of 7
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

Superior Court erred by failing to grant his state petition for writ of

habeas corpus. (Id. at 16-19). 

Respondent contends that Petitioner has failed to allege a

cognizable claim for federal habeas relief because Petitioner was not

assessed a loss of credits as a result of the prison disciplinary action

against him. (ECF No. 6 at 1). Petitioner does not respond to

Respondent’s contention in his Opposition. (See ECF No. 9). Rather,

Petitioner reiterates his due process claim. (See id.).

 For the Court to have jurisdiction to address the merits of

Petitioner’s constitutional claims in a habeas petition, Petitioner must

allege that the disciplinary decision affected “the very fact or duration of

his physical imprisonment.” See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. Here,

Petitioner does not allege that the disciplinary proceeding affected the

length of his confinement. (See ECF No. 1). Petitioner attached a copy of

the Senior Hearing Officer’s written decision to his Petition. (Id. at 125). 

The decision indicates that Petitioner did not lose any credit as a result

of the disciplinary violation. (Id.). Further, Petitioner does not allege

that the disciplinary violation negatively affected his parole eligibility or

implicated the duration of his confinement in any other way. 

Petitioner’s allegation that the Superior Court erred by failing to

grant his state petition for writ of habeas corpus also fails to state a

cognizable federal claim. (Id. at 16-19). Petitioner claimed in his state

court habeas petition that the Senior Hearing Officer violated his due

process rights during the disciplinary proceeding. (ECF No. 1 at 60-61). 

As previously discussed, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review

the merits of this due process claim in a habeas petition because the

duration of Petitioner’s confinement was not affected. See Preiser, 411

- 6 - 13-cv-0634-DMS-MDD

Case 3:13-cv-00634-DMS-MDD Document 10 Filed 08/06/13 Page 6 of 7
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. at 499. 

V. CONCLUSION

Although Petitioner is dissatisfied with the results of his

disciplinary hearing, his dissatisfaction is not cognizable on federal

habeas review because he did not allege that the disciplinary violation

affected the fact or duration of his confinement. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at

499. Petitioner’s claims must instead be raised, if at all, under § 1983. 

See Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 859.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED

that the District Court issue an Order GRANTING Respondent’s Motion

to Dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this

Report must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later

than August 28, 2013. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objection shall

be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than September,

11, 2013. The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within

the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal

of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 6, 2013

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 7 - 13-cv-0634-DMS-MDD

Case 3:13-cv-00634-DMS-MDD Document 10 Filed 08/06/13 Page 7 of 7