Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01283/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01283-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL DAVID ALVARADO,

Petitioner,

v.

C. BURCH, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:19-cv-01283-NONE-SKO (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 13)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE 

OF CLOSING CASE AND THEN ENTER 

JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

[NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS 

REQUIRED]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and in propria persona with 

a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On January 24, 2020, the 

assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that the pending 

petition be denied on its merits. (Doc. No. 13.) The findings and recommendations were served 

upon all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days 

from the date of service. To date, no party has filed objections.1 

 

1

 The court notes that the findings and recommendations were served by mail upon petitioner at 

his address of record but were returned to the court by the U.S. Postal Service on February 21, 

2020, as “Undeliverable – Refused.” 

Case 1:19-cv-01283-DAD-SKO Document 15 Filed 03/10/20 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

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Petitioner’s is currently in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the 

United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California. In the pending petition he challenges a prison 

disciplinary hearing at which he was found guilty of using illicit drugs in a prison facility, and for 

which he was sanctioned with a 41-day loss of Good Conduct Time credits. (Doc. 1 at 6.) 

Specifically, petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence submitted at the hearing arguing 

that it failed to support the finding that he was guilty of the disciplinary charge. As the Supreme 

Court has explained, “the requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the 

decision by the prison disciplinary board to revoke good time credits.” Superintendent, 

Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1984). Further, 

[a]scertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require 

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. Here, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that there is at least “some 

evidence” in the record to support the disciplinary decision because a BOP witness with firsthand knowledge noted in a written report that petitioner appeared to be under the influence of a 

narcotic based on his erratic behavior. (Doc. No. 13 at 2–3, 6.) In addition, a registered nurse 

then examined petitioner and reported that he had no medical history or current prescriptions that 

would result in such an altered mental state and concluded that petitioner’s behavior was 

consistent with the use of synthetic cannabinoids, the use of which cannot be confirmed by the 

urine test administered to petitioner. (Id.) Because there was some evidence submitted which 

supports petitioner’s disciplinary conviction, the pending findings and recommendations will be 

adopted.

In the event a notice of appeal is filed by petitioner in this action, a certificate of 

appealability is not required because this “is not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.” Forde v. U.S. Parole 

Case 1:19-cv-01283-DAD-SKO Document 15 Filed 03/10/20 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

3

Commission, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (5th 

Cir. 1997) and Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996)); see also Close v. Thomas, 

653 F.3d 970, 974 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011).

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

1. The findings and recommendations, filed January 24, 2020 (Doc. No. 13), are

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; 

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 

of closing the case and then to ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE; and,

4. No certificate of appealability is required.

This order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01283-DAD-SKO Document 15 Filed 03/10/20 Page 3 of 3