Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00626/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00626-4/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 – 12-cv-626 BAS (MDD)

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

JAVIER RAYGOSA,

Petitioner,

Case No. 12-cv-626 BAS (MDD)

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION; 

AND

(2) GRANTING

PETITIONER’S HABEAS 

RELIEF

[ECF 10]

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Respondents.

On November 11, 2009, Petitioner Javier Raygosa appealed his rule 

violation, which was denied. ECF 10, 35–37. After exhausting his administrative 

remedies, he filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the California Superior 

Court, Imperial County on July 14, 2010. See Lodg. 6. The state court held that his 

rule violation was supported by “some evidence,” and therefore he was granted 

constitutional due process. ECF 10, 17. He filed a second habeas petition, this time 

in the California Court of Appeal, on October 1, 2010. Lodg. 8, 4–12. The 

appellate court found that there was some evidence that he solicited or conspired to 

Case 3:12-cv-00626-BAS-MDD Document 58 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 12-cv-626 BAS (MDD)

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

introduce a controlled substance into the prison. ECF 10, 19. On February 17,

2011, Petitioner filed a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court, which 

was denied without comment. Id. at 20.

On March 12, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for habeas relief with this 

Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF 1. This petition was defective, and 

therefore the Court dismissed it without prejudice. ECF 2. On July 23, 2012, 

Petitioner filed his First Amended Petition (“Petition”). ECF 10.

In his Petition, Petitioner contends that his rules violation finding was 

arbitrary and capricious, in violation of his due process rights. ECF 10. He claims 

his offense was wrongly termed as distribution instead of possession. Id.

On September 23, 2014, Magistrate Judge Mitchell Dembin reviewed his 

Petition and recommended that this Court grant it. ECF 55. Respondent California 

Department of Corrections opposed the recommendation. ECF 56. For the 

following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the recommendation in its entirety (ECF 

55), OVERRULES Respondent’s objections (ECF 56), and GRANTS the Petition 

(ECF 10).

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court’s duties concerning a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation and a party’s objections thereto are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Specifically, the

district court “must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . 

. to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(c); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); United 

States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989).

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Superindendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, (1985), 

requires petitioners to “demonstrate that the decision reached was arbitrary and not 

supported by ‘some evidence.’” This standard is met if “there was some evidence 

Case 3:12-cv-00626-BAS-MDD Document 58 Filed 12/15/14 Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 12-cv-626 BAS (MDD)

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

from which the conclusion of the administrative tribunal could be deduced....”

United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106 

(1927). This is separate from the constitutional due process requirement that each 

material element reach the requisite evidentiary burden.

II. ANALYSIS

Petitioner was found to have violated California Code of Regulation Title 15 

§ 3000, distribution of a controlled substance. “Distribution” includes “the sale or 

unlawful dispersing, by an inmate . . . of any controlled substance; or the 

solicitation of or conspiring with others in arranging for, the introduction of 

controlled substances into any institution . . . for the purposes of sales or 

distribution.” Id. Respondent summarizes the facts supporting the finding,

“Raygosa’s approved visitor (Ms. Bermudez) had seven bindles of marijuana 

weighing a total of 12 grams secreted in her vagina, correctional officers observed 

her passing something to Raygosa’s mouth via a kiss, [and] Raygosa was found to 

have a pungent odor coming from his mouth and green leafy particles on his 

tongue[.]” Obj. to R&R, 2:6–9, ECF 56. The California Court of Appeal adopted 

the same facts. See id.at 5:11–16. Based on these facts, Respondent argues the

evidence sufficiently shows Petitioner distributed a controlled substance to find a 

rule violation. 

The evidence taken in the light most favorable to Respondent supports a 

possession of a controlled substance violation, California Code of Regulations § 

3016(a). However, these facts provide no evidence to support Petitioner’s intent to 

distribute. Crucially, there is no evidence that Ms. Bermudez would have had any 

opportunity to remove the securely stowed bindles such that she could transfer 

them to Petitioner. Without this or similar evidence, it cannot be deduced that the 

marijuana passed to Petitioner was more than for personal use. Because there is no 

evidence of distribution, and Hill requires “some evidence,” the decision violated 

the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Judge Dembin’s 

Case 3:12-cv-00626-BAS-MDD Document 58 Filed 12/15/14 Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 12-cv-626 BAS (MDD)

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

recommendation.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

After considering Petitioner’s objections and conducting a de novo review, 

the Court concludes that Judge Dembin’s reasoning in the recommendation is 

sound. In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety 

(ECF 56), OVERRULES Respondent’s objections, GRANTS Petitioner’s First 

Amended Petition (ECF 10) for a writ of habeas corpus, and ORDERS 

Respondent take appropriate administrative action consistent with this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2014

Case 3:12-cv-00626-BAS-MDD Document 58 Filed 12/15/14 Page 4 of 4