Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02182/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02182-1/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

1

 Roderick Q. Hickman has been substituted in place of W.S. Sullivan, the warden of the prison

in which petitioner is currently incarcerated and the respondent originally named in the petition. (Doc.

No. 12.) 

- 1 - 05cv2182

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD BRIM SR., 

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05-CV-2182 – IEG (WMc)

ORDER: 

(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

(2) DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

WITH PREJUDICE; and 

(3) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

vs.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, Secretary of

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

On November 23, 2005, Ronald Brim, Sr., (“petitioner”), a state inmate proceeding pro se,

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“petition”).1

 Petitioner, in

his petition, claims that his Constitutional due process and equal protection rights were violated

because a disciplinary committee found him guilty in a prison disciplinary hearing . (Petition at 6-11.)

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine Jr. pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule HC.2(a). On March 21, 2006, respondent filed an answer to

the petitioner for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. No. 14.) Petitioner filed a memorandum in support of

Case 3:05-cv-02182-IEG-WMC Document 20 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 2
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 - 05cv2182

his petition on March 24, 2006. (Doc. No. 18.) 

On January 18, 2007, Magistrate Judge McCurine issued a Report and Recommendation

(“Report”) recommending that the court deny the petition as to both petitioner’s due process and equal

protection arguments. (Doc. No. 19.) The court, having reviewed de novo the Magistrate Judge’s

Report, and there being no objections filed to the Report, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendations in full. 

The court hereby DENIES the petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice. Furthermore,

the Court DENIES petitioner a certificate of appealability, as petitioner has not made a substantial

showing that he has been denied a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 13, 2007

HON. IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Southern District of California

Case 3:05-cv-02182-IEG-WMC Document 20 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 2