Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02216/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02216-0/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

07cv2216-JAH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK A. HARRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

TOMMY FELKER, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07cv2216-JAH (BLM)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States

District Judge John A. Houston pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil

Local Rules 72.1(d) and HC.2 of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California.

On November 19, 2007, Petitioner Mark Harris, a state prisoner who

is proceeding pro se, commenced these habeas corpus proceedings pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. No. 1. Petitioner challenges a prison

disciplinary adjudication wherein he was found to have participated in

the “stabbing battery of an inmate with serious injury” in violation of

California Code of Regulations, title 15, § 3005(c) and, as a result,

assessed a twenty-four month term in administrative segregation. Id.

/// 

Case 3:07-cv-02216-JAH-BLM Document 18 Filed 08/21/08 Page 1 of 7
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 07cv2216-JAH (BLM)

 This Court has considered the Petition, Respondent’s Answer,

Petitioner’s lengthy Traverse, and all supporting documents submitted

by the parties. For the reasons set forth below, this Court RECOMMENDS

that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1990, Petitioner plead guilty to one count of first degree

murder while armed with a firearm and one count of second degree murder.

Lodgment 1. He was sentenced to twenty-five years to life for the first

count, plus one year for the armed enhancement. Id. The court imposed

a term of fifteen years to life for count two, but set this term to run

concurrently with count one. Id. 

On June 6, 2003, while Petitioner was incarcerated at Centinela

State Prison, several inmates were involved with the stabbing of an

inmate named Davis. Lodgment 4 at 1-2. The subsequent investigation

revealed that Petitioner planned the battery, which was supposed to have

occurred in the yard, but instead took place in inmate Davis’ cell. Id.

at 2. Evidence showed that inmate Bishop stabbed inmate Davis and then,

when inmate Davis attempted to flee from the cell, Petitioner pushed him

back in. Id. Davis ultimately escaped the cell and reported to an

officer that he had been stabbed. Id.; Lodgment 2 at 2.

The prison’s Investigative Services Unit (“ISU”) conducted an

investigation and, on August 19, 2003, the Senior Hearing Officer held

a hearing on the matter. Lodgment 4 at 1. Based upon the evidence

offered by the ISU and presented at the hearing, the Senior Hearing

Officer and the Chief Disciplinary Officer found Petitioner guilty of

“participation in a stabbing battery of an inmate with serious injury”

(in violation of Cal. Code Reg., title 15, § 3005(c)). Id. at 1, 10.

As punishment, Petitioner was assessed a 360-day forfeiture of

Case 3:07-cv-02216-JAH-BLM Document 18 Filed 08/21/08 Page 2 of 7
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 07cv2216-JAH (BLM)

behavioral credits (also known as “good time credits”) and a twenty-four

month term in the administrative segregation unit. Lodgment 4 at 10 &

Lodgment 5 at 1. 

Because Petitioner was placed in administrative segregation on June

13, 2003, due to possible involvement in the stabbing incident, his term

began to run as of that date. See id.; Pet., Ex. K. His minimum

eligible release date from the segregation unit was calculated to be

December 13, 2004 (Lodgment 5 at 1) and the prison records show that

Petitioner actually was released from administrative segregation upon

his transfer to High Desert State Prison on December 29, 2004 (Lodgment

9; Resp’t Mem. at 7). Additionally, as a result of the prison’s failure

to meet time constraints for imposing a credit loss, the order assessing

the 360-day behavior credits loss was revoked. See Lodgment 8 at 6;

Lodgment 10 at 1. 

Petitioner sought relief first through the prison appeal system

then through habeas petitions in the California state courts. See

Lodgments 11-21. On November 19, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

JURISDICTIONAL CUSTODY REQUIREMENT

Upon review of the documents filed in this case, it appears that

Petitioner is not in custody as a result of the conviction and sentence

he challenges in the instant Petition.

Federal courts generally have jurisdiction to consider a habeas

petition only if the petitioner is “‘in custody’ under the conviction

or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v.

Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989); Fowler v. Sacramento Cty. Sheriff’s

Dept., 421 F.3d 1027, 1033 n.5 (9th Cir. 2005); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(c)(3) (“The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner

Case 3:07-cv-02216-JAH-BLM Document 18 Filed 08/21/08 Page 3 of 7
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 The records Petitioner attaches to his pleadings indicate that even if he

served the maximum sentence, he would have been released on May 13, 2005 (Pet., Ex. K),

which was over two years before he filed his federal petition. 

4 07cv2216-JAH (BLM)

unless-- ...(h)e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws

or treaties of the United States...”). The Supreme Court’s

interpretation of the “in custody” language has not required “actual,

physical custody.” See Jones v. Cunningham , 371 U.S. 236, 239, 243

(1963) (finding custody requirement satisfied where petitioner on parole

because parole “imposes conditions which significantly confine and

restrain his freedom”); Fowler, 421 F.3d at 1033 n.5 (petitioner on

probation considered “in custody”). But, the custody requirement is not

satisfied where the sentence for the challenged conviction has been

fully served. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492; Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S.

39, 45 (1995) (confirming holding of Maleng court); see also Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487-488 (1973) (noting that the purpose of

initiating a habeas corpus action is to obtain an immediate release from

illegal confinement or, at least, shorten the duration of confinement

such as through the restoration of good-time credits). Moreover, the

possibility that the prior conviction will be used to enhance future

sentences imposed for any subsequent crimes also is insufficient to

satisfy the custody requirement. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492.

Here, Petitioner does not challenge his murder conviction or

sentence. He challenges only the prison disciplinary action for which

he was sentenced to twenty-four months in segregated housing. Pet. at

6-7; see also Traverse at 3. However, Petitioner acknowledges that he

already has served his term in administrative segregation1

 and the

prison records show that Petitioner was released from administrative

Case 3:07-cv-02216-JAH-BLM Document 18 Filed 08/21/08 Page 4 of 7
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

5 07cv2216-JAH (BLM)

segregation upon his transfer to High Desert State Prison on December

29, 2004. Lodgment 9; Resp’t Mem. at 7. This was almost three years

prior to the November 19, 2007 filing of his Petition in this Court.

Thus, Petitioner was not in custody under the disciplinary conviction

or sentence he is challenging at the time his federal petition was

filed. This Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to hear the Petition.

Maleng, 490 U.S. at 490-91.

Even if Petitioner alleged that he continued to suffer consequences

collateral to his conviction, which he does not, these would not remedy

the jurisdictional problem. “[O]nce the sentence imposed for a

conviction has completely expired, the collateral consequences of that

conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual ‘in

custody’ for the purposes of a habeas attached upon it.” Maleng, 290

U.S. at 492; see also Feldman v. Perrill, 902 F.2d 1445, 1448 (9th Cir.

1990) (stating that an expired conviction cannot satisfy the “in

custody” requirement). 

Petitioner also does not allege that he suffered a loss of good

behavior credits as a consequence of the disciplinary action. While the

Constitution does not guarantee good-time credits for acceptable

behavior while in prison, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974),

the Supreme Court has held that where the state has created a right to

earn credits, “due process requires procedural protections before a

prison inmate can be deprived of a protected liberty interest in good

time credits.” Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472

U.S. 445, 453 (1985) (citing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 557). Thus, an inmate

who is deprived of good-time credits without first having been afforded

procedural due process, may challenge the loss in a federal habeas

petition. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 557. However, Petitioner makes no such

Case 3:07-cv-02216-JAH-BLM Document 18 Filed 08/21/08 Page 5 of 7
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 While the Court recommends that this case be dismissed based on the

authority set forth above, the Court also notes that Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

§ 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly

appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court...” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll.

§ 2254. Here, it is plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled

to federal habeas relief because he was not in custody pursuant to the disciplinary

adjudication and sentence attacked in the Petition when he filed his Petition in this

Court. Accordingly, Rule 4 also supports this Court’s recommendation that the Petition

be dismissed. 

6 07cv2216-JAH (BLM)

claim in this case and, in fact, he was not deprived of any good-time

credits as a result of this incident. See Lodgment 8 at 6 & Lodgment

10 at 1 (showing that the order assessing credit loss was revoked).

Therefore, this Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition be DISMISSED for lack

of jurisdiction.2

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

In sum, this Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over

Petitioner’s Petition. As such, this Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice.

For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the

District Court issue an Order: (1) approving and adopting this Report

and Recommendation, and (2) directing that Judgment be entered

dismissing the Petition.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this Report

must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than

September 12, 2008. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Report and Recommendation.”

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-02216-JAH-BLM Document 18 Filed 08/21/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7 07cv2216-JAH (BLM)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be

filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than October 3,

2008. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within

the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on

appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455

(9th Cir. 1998). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 21, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE JOHN A. HOUSTON

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-02216-JAH-BLM Document 18 Filed 08/21/08 Page 7 of 7