Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02109/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02109-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENDERSON L. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

FRANK CHAVEZ, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.13cv2109 DMS (NLS)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION FOR

ORDER GRANTING

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS 

[Doc. No. 6]

Henderson L. Johnson (“Johnson” or “Petitioner”) is a California prisoner

proceeding pro se with a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

(“Petition”). Dkt. No. 1. Johnson alleges that two correctional officers violated his due

process rights with respect to citing him on January 11, 2012 with a Rules Violation

Report (“RVR”) for possession of a cell phone charger. 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition. He argues that Johnson fails to

challenge the legality or duration of his confinement and therefore fails to allege a

cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief. Respondent argues the Petition cannot

support a finding of federal jurisdiction and must be dismissed. 

As of the date of this order, Petitioner has not filed an opposition. The court

reviewed the record, and for the following reasons, RECOMMENDS that the district

judge GRANT the motion to dismiss.

1 13cv2109 DMS (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-02109-DMS-NLS Document 7 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 5
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

BACKGROUND

Johnson is currently serving an indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life in prison

for a 2003 conviction. Mem. Ps&As, p.2. 

On January 11, 2012, Johnson was cited with a RVR for possession of a

contraband cell phone charger that was stored under the bed. Pet’n, p.6. The California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) served the RVR on Johnson

within 15 days. Id. at 23. It held a hearing within 30 days of service. Id. His cell mate at

the time, inmate Weatherspoon, admitted full responsibility for bringing the contraband

into the cell and taking steps to conceal its presence from Johnson. Id. at 6. The charger

was concealed within Weatherspoon’s belongings. Id.

The CDCR found Johnson guilty of possessing the contraband, not owning it. Id.

at 16, 23. Consequently, Johnson was assessed a forfeiture of 90 days of behavorial

credits. Id. at 23.

Johnson exhausted his claim in state court. The California Supreme Court denied

his habeas petition on this matter on July 17, 2013. Id. at 13. He filed the Petition in this

court on September 9, 2013. Dkt. No. 1. He claims he suffered a due process violation

because he was charged and found guilty of possessing a contraband item in prison that

his cellmate admitted to owning. 

Respondent argues the court should dismiss the Petition because Johnson does not

state a claim that implicates federal law.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any petition for writ of habeas corpus that seeks relief not available in the district

court must be dismissed. Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, R.4. Filing a

motion to dismiss will “avoid burdening the respondent with the necessity of filing an

answer on the substantive merits of the petition.” Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 324

(1996). When filing a habeas petition, a petitioner must allege that he or she is in custody

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

2254(a); Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Claims not cognizable via

2 13cv2109 DMS (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-02109-DMS-NLS Document 7 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 5
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

federal habeas review are subject to dismissal. See id. Leave to amend the petition

should be granted unless “no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded.” Jarvis v. Nelson,

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

DISCUSSION

Johnson cites “due process” as his ground for relief. Pet’n at 6. He does not cite to

the Constitution or federal law, nor explain how the disciplinary hearing violated federal

law. He generally refers to the fact that he received a RVR for possession of a cell phone

charger that his cellmate admitted to owning. In the exhibits attached to the Petition,

Johnson went through a disciplinary hearing where he was assessed a 90-day forfeiture

of good time credits. He filed an administrative appeal of that decision, which was

affirmed.

Without anything more, this Petition does not state a claim cognizable on federal

habeas review because Johnson does not show he is entitled to any relief in federal court. 

Estelle, 502 U.S. at 68. To get relief in this court, Johnson would have to allege a

constitutional violation. 

To properly allege a constitutional violation, Johnson would have to allege more

facts and federal law in his Petition. For example, if he could allege that a constitutional

violation caused the loss of his time credits, such violation would affect the duration of

his sentence and would entitle Johnson to habeas relief. Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874,

876-878 (9th Cir. 1990). More specifically, Johnson would have to allege something like

a violation of procedural due process in the disciplinary proceeding, where he would have

to show that he did not receive: 

(1) advance written notice of at least 24 hours of the

disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with

institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written

statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the

reasons for the disciplinary action. 

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). He would also have to show that the

decision was not supported by even “some evidence.” Id. at 455. But Johnson makes no

3 13cv2109 DMS (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-02109-DMS-NLS Document 7 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 5
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

such allegations here. 

Other claims that Johnson would be foreclosed from alleging would be a fifth

amendment double jeopardy claim, because disciplinary sanctions and loss of good time

credits “do not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes.” U.S. v. Brown, 59

F.3d 102, 105 (9th Cir. 1995); Fazzini v. Hawk, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 11393, *3 (9th

Cir. 1999). Further, Johnson could not allege that the 90-day forfeiture of behavorial

credit was cruel and unusual punishment because for any habeas petition that challenges

the length of prison time under the eighth amendment, “the only relevant clearly

established law . . . is the gross disproportionality principle . . . applicable only in the

‘exceedingly rare’ and ‘extreme’ case.” Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73 (2003)

(citation omitted). Because good time credits do not affect the length of Johnson’s

overall sentence but only the time on which he might be released on parole, there is no

cognizable, or even possible, eighth amendment claim.

Johnson does not meet his burden to show that his disciplinary proceeding violated

federal law. Accordingly, this court recommends that the habeas petition be dismissed

for failure to state a claim.

CONCLUSION

For all of the above reasons, the court RECOMMENDS that motion to dismiss be

GRANTED and the Petition be DISMISSED in its entirety for failure to state any

federal claim. 

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

IT IS ORDERED that no later than January 27, 2014, any party to this action

may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

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

the Court and served on all parties no later than February 7, 2014. The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

4 13cv2109 DMS (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-02109-DMS-NLS Document 7 Filed 01/06/14 Page 4 of 5
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

raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 6, 2014

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

5 13cv2109 DMS (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-02109-DMS-NLS Document 7 Filed 01/06/14 Page 5 of 5