Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02891/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02891-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW BERNARD MOSS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR.,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-2891 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a habeas case brought pro se by a state prisoner. The petition is directed to

petitioner’s conviction of violating a prison rule against possession of a controlled

substance. Among the sanctions imposed for violation of the rule was a loss of 130 days of

good time. Petitioner asserts that his due process rights were violated when the institution

did not send the marijuana for testing until forty-five days after it was seized and thirty days

after he and his cellmate tested positive for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and

that there was not “some evidence” to support his conviction for violating a rule against

possession and distribution of a controlled substance.

In its initial review the court noted that petitioner is serving a sentence of seven

years to life, and expressed doubt that the loss of 130 days of good time would necessarily

have any effect upon the length of his sentence. Because habeas traditionally can be used

only to attack the fact of one’s confinement or the length of that confinement, the court

ordered petitioner to show cause why the case should not be dismissed as not properly

brought in habeas. Petitioner has filed an excellent response. 

In his response petitioner relies primarily upon Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024 (9th

Cir. 2004). In Docken the court stated that although traditionally challenges to prison

conditions have been cognizable only via a § 1983 civil rights action, while challenges

Case 4:08-cv-02891-PJH Document 5 Filed 07/28/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

implicating the fact or duration of confinement must be brought through a habeas petition,

the two remedies are not always mutually exclusive. Id. at 1026, 1031; see also id. at 1027

n.2. The actual holding in Docken is: "when prison inmates seek only equitable relief in

challenging aspects of their parole review that, so long as they prevail, could potentially

affect the duration of their confinement, such relief is available under the federal habeas

statute." Id. at 1031 (emphasis added). Because the petition here does not challenge a

parole review proceeding, it may be that Docken does not apply. This is a difficult question,

however, and it is one that need not be answered, because the petition must be dismissed

for failure to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4

Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970). 

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are

available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each

of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts

that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes. 

“Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are subject to

summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108

(9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

Petitioner’s first issue is his contention that his due process rights were violated

when the institution did not send the marijuana for testing until forty-five days after it was

seized and thirty days after he and his cellmate tested positive for THC, the active

ingredient in marijuana. The United States Supreme Court has not recognized any due

Case 4:08-cv-02891-PJH Document 5 Filed 07/28/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

process right to have evidence in prison disciplinary proceedings tested with any particular

speed, and the California regulations petitioner cites are, of course, not relevant to the

question whether a federal due process right was violated. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502

U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (federal habeas unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged

error in the interpretation or application of state law). Petitioner’s allegations as to his first

issue therefore are not sufficient to show a real possibility of constitutional error. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d) (court may grant federal habeas relief only if the state courts’ rejections of

the claim were contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly-established United

States Supreme Court authority). 

Petitioner’s second issue is a contention that the conviction was not supported by

“some evidence.” In Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985), the Court held that

the revocation of good-time credits does not comport with the minimum requirements of

procedural due process unless the findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported

by some evidence in the record. The standard for the modicum of evidence required is met

if there was some evidence from which the conclusion of the administrative tribunal could

be deduced. Id. at 455. An examination of the entire record is not required nor is an

independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses or weighing of the evidence. Id.

The relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the

conclusion reached by the disciplinary board. Id. 

The evidence supporting the conviction was (1) the report by the officer who seized

the marijuana saying that he found it in petitioner’s tennis shoe;(2) the toxicological report

saying that the substance was marijuana, and (3) the lab report saying that petitioner tested

positive for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Petitioner says that because the

reporting officer did not note his confiscation of the tennis shoes and the marijuana on the

search receipt, as allegedly required by DOCR procedures, doubt is cast on the evidence

that it was found in his shoe. This ignores that the officer wrote a rules violation report

regarding the contraband, and in any event Hill does not require an examination of the

entire record; rather, a court reviewing for “some evidence” must focus on the evidence

Case 4:08-cv-02891-PJH Document 5 Filed 07/28/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

supporting the outcome. Petitioner also ignores the undisputed fact that he tested positive

for THC, which tends to support the conclusion that he possessed the contraband. On

petitioner’s own allegations, there was more than “some evidence” to support the

disciplinary conviction. 

Petitioner’s second contention therefore is not sufficient to show a real possibility of

constitutional error. The petition will be summarily dismissed. See Calderon v. United

States Dist. Court (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J.,

concurring) (“Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be legally insufficient are

subject to summary dismissal.”). 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, this case is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.08\MOSS2891.dsm.wpd

Case 4:08-cv-02891-PJH Document 5 Filed 07/28/08 Page 4 of 4