Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02250/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02250-9/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

 See Orders, filed on March 28, 2008, and on April 28, 2008. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD RHODES, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2250 JAM GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On March 11, 2008, this court ordered an evidentiary hearing to be held regarding

whether insufficient evidence supports petitioner’s two prison disciplinary convictions based on

petitioner’s refusal to submit to DNA testing pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 296 because he did

not receive a priority ducat (DVI 02-1755) and because the reporting employee was not

authorized to perform the DNA test, particularly in his office (DVI 02-2048). Counsel was

appointed for petitioner for purposes of investigating, preparing for and conducting the pending

evidentiary hearing by Order, filed on March 28, 2008. Present counsel was substituted in as

counsel in this case by Order, filed on April 14, 2008. 

By Order, filed on May 2, 2008, the evidentiary hearing was set for August 4,

2008. On May 22, 2008, after two extensions of time were granted for purposes of the filing of 1

objections to the March 11, 2008 Findings and Recommendations, as well as for seeking

Case 2:04-cv-02250-JAM-GGH Document 37 Filed 06/06/08 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

reconsideration of the March 11, 2008, Order for an evidentiary hearing, petitioner, through his

counsel, filed objections which simply seek a de novo review of all eight claims with the

exception of claim three, for which it was determined that an evidentiary hearing must be held. 

While not objecting to proceeding with an evidentiary hearing, however, petitioner’s counsel

noted that he had been advised that CDCR had recently determined to reduce the 115 prison

disciplinary conviction(s), in which case counsel for petitioner stated that “an evidentiary hearing

m[a]y not be necessary.” Objections, p. 3, n. 1. 

On May 23, 2008, respondent filed a reply to the objections seeking adoption of

the findings and recommendations, stating therein as well that the challenged disciplinaries had

been dismissed and that the order for an evidentiary hearing should be vacated and the petition

denied. Respondent also separately filed on the same day a request for reconsideration of the

order for an evidentiary hearing, submitting exhibits which indicate that the prison disciplinary

convictions have been dismissed, replaced with CDC 128A counseling chronos, and that the 60

days assessed for each (120 days total) have been restored to petitioner. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, within ten (10) days, petitioner must inform

the court why the restoration of time credits should not be found to have mooted all claims and

why, beyond simply vacating the order for an evidentiary hearing, the petition should not be

dismissed as moot.

DATED: 06/06/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

rhod2250.ord

Case 2:04-cv-02250-JAM-GGH Document 37 Filed 06/06/08 Page 2 of 2