Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02261/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02261-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

FREDDIE LOUIS BENNETT,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-2261 SI (pr)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

Freddie Louis Bennett, a prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in

Soledad, has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His

petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Bennett was found guilty in a prison disciplinary proceeding of an unidentified charge

on August 20, 2005, while he was incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison. (Although his

petition did not identify the date of the disciplinary decision being challenged, his recently-filed

motion for appointment of counsel did so.) The disciplinary decision resulted in the loss of time

credits and apparently adversely affected his parole consideration on a later date. He alleges that

he exhausted state court remedies for the claims raised in his petition before he filed this action.

Case 3:07-cv-02261-SI Document 4 Filed 09/10/07 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

DISCUSSION

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). A

district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall "award the writ or issue

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28

U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v.

Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects

individuals against governmental deprivations of life, liberty or property without due process of

law. An inmate in California is entitled to due process before being disciplined when the

discipline imposed will inevitably affect the duration of his sentence. See Sandin v. Conner, 515

U.S. 472, 484, 487 (1995). Due process requires that there be "some evidence" to support the

disciplinary decision. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985)

Liberally construed, the petition alleges that the disciplinary decision was not supported

by some reliable evidence and that the decision-maker was biased. These due process claims

are cognizable in a federal habeas action and warrant a response from respondent. 

The petition also alleges that the California state courts erred in their consideration of

Bennett's state habeas petitions challenging the prison disciplinary decision. Errors in the state

collateral review process are not addressable through federal habeas corpus proceedings because

they pertain to the review process itself and do not generally represent an attack on the prisoner's

detention. See Gerlaugh v. Stewart, 129 F.3d 1027, 1045 (9th Cir. 1997); Villafuerte v. Stewart,

111 F.3d 616, 632 n.7 (9th Cir. 1997); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989).

The claim is dismissed without leave to amend.

Case 3:07-cv-02261-SI Document 4 Filed 09/10/07 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

The petition also includes allegations about violations of state law and state regulations

in the handling of the disciplinary matter against Bennett. Federal habeas review is available

"only on the basis of some transgression of federal law binding on the state courts." Middleton

v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 119 (1982)),

cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). It is unavailable for violations of state law or for alleged

error in the interpretation or application of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68

(1991); Engle, 456 U.S. at 119. The claims concerning the state law errors are dismissed

because federal habeas relief is not available for any such errors. 

Bennett has moved for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. A district

court may appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court determines that

the interests of justice so require and such person is financially unable to obtain representation."

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the

district court. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S.

1023 (1987). Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case

indicate that appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See id. Based

on the materials in the court file, it does not appear that appointment of counsel is necessary in

this action. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons,

1. The petition presents cognizable due process claims that the evidence was

insufficient to support the disciplinary decision that resulted in the loss of time credits and that

the decision-maker was biased. All other claims are dismissed.

2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the contents of the

case file for this action upon respondent and respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the

State of California. The clerk also shall send a copy of this order to petitioner. 

Case 3:07-cv-02261-SI Document 4 Filed 09/10/07 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

3. Respondent shall file and serve on petitioner, on or before November 16, 2007,

an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent shall file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the administrative and state court record that have been

transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the

petition. 

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before December 21, 2007.

5. Petitioner is responsible for prosecuting this case. He must keep the court and

opposing counsel informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders

in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

6. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 10, 2007 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02261-SI Document 4 Filed 09/10/07 Page 4 of 4