Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01334/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01334-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE PEYTON,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANICE WOODWORD,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1334 REC DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING PETITION TO AMEND

PETITION

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 22, 2005, in

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. By

order of October 17, 2005, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division. 

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary

review of each Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court must dismiss a Petition "[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the

district court." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

F.2d 490 (9 Cir. 1990). th

A. Failure to State Claim

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 01/25/06 Page 1 of 4
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 the instant petition, Petitioner is challenging the procedure regarding the issuance of a

rules violation report. 

Petitioner is advised that a federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas

corpus if the petitioner can show that "he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . ." 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (a). A petition for writ of habeas corpus must specify the grounds for relief. Rule

2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The petition must also allege the facts

surrounding petitioner’s incarceration. 28 U.S.C. § 2242. The petitioner must make specific

factual allegations that would entitle him to habeas corpus relief if they are true. O'Bremski v.

Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Poopola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th Cir.

1989). In addition, a petition presented in pro se must be upon the form approved by the court. 

See Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Local Rule 81-190 This rule ensures

that all information needed is before the court. Each ground for relief must be clearly stated and

allege what federal constitutional violation has occurred, along with providing facts that support

the grounds for relief. If a petition contains no grounds entitling the petitioner to habeas corpus

relief, the court must dismiss the petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property without due process of law. Prisoners retain their right to due process subject to the

restrictions imposed by the nature of the penal system. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556

(1974).

A prisoner in a prison disciplinary hearing is not entitled to the full array of due process

rights that a defendant possesses in a criminal prosecution. Id. at 556. However, a prisoner who

is accused of serious rules violations and who may be deprived of his or her good-time credits is

entitled to certain minimum procedural protections. Id. at 571-71 n. 9. 

The process due in such a prison disciplinary hearing includes: (1) written notification of

the charges; (2) at least a brief period of time after the notice to prepare for the hearing; (3) a

written statement by the fact-finders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary

action; (4) the inmate facing the charges should be allowed to call witnesses and present

documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 01/25/06 Page 2 of 4
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

to institutional safety or correctional goals. Id. at 564, 566, 570. 

In addition, a decision to revoke an inmate’s good-time credit does not comport with

minimum procedural due process requirements unless its underlying findings are supported by

“some evidence.” Superintendant v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). The U.S. Supreme Court

has held that “ascertaining 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. The Ninth Circuit has

further held that there must be “some indicia of reliability of the information that forms the basis

for prison disciplinary actions.” Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9 Cir. 1987) th

(uncorroborated hearsay statement of confidential informant with no firsthand knowledge is not

enough evidence to meet Hill standard.) 

Petitioner’s petition does not state with clarity the nature of his due process challenge. 

Petitioner merely contends in conclusory terms that his due process rights were violated in

relation to the issuance of the rules violation report. Beyond that, Petitioner does not elaborate

on the factual allegations underlying his claim. Conclusory allegations do not warrant habeas

relief. See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9 Cir.1995) (holding that conclusory th

allegations made with no reference to the record or any document do not merit habeas relief). 

The Court will grant Petitioner an opportunity to submit an amended petition to cure the

deficiency. 

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall

submit a an amended petition clearly setting forth his claim(s) for relief as

outlined herein;

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 01/25/06 Page 3 of 4
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

2. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank § 2254 form petition; and

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the instant

petition be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

and for failure to comply with a court order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 24, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01334-LJO-DLB Document 7 Filed 01/25/06 Page 4 of 4