Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02948/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02948-1/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 

16cv2948-MMA (PCL) 

 

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 

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

W.F. MONTGOMERY, Warden, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 16cv2948-MMA (PCL) 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION DENYING 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Petitioner Francisco Rodriguez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc 1.) Petitioner is in the lawful custody of 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) following his March 

12, 2014 guilty plea and conviction for one count of voluntary manslaughter with a 

weapons enhancement, for which he was serving a determinate prison term of twelve 

years. (See Doc. 1, at 1-2.) Petitioner does not challenge his underlying conviction or the 

imposition of his sentence but rather seeks to overturn the ruling of an institutional 

administrative disciplinary action in which he was found guilty of possessing 

methamphetamine on March 21, 2016. (Doc. 1, at 3.) For the reasons given below, 

Petitioner’s Petition should be denied. 

Case 3:16-cv-02948-MMA-PCL Document 11 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
2 

16cv2948-MMA (PCL) 

 

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

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

The following facts are taken from the Superior Court of California’s Order denying 

his habeas petition. (Lodgment 4.) 

On Monday, October 27, 2014, Officer R. Ramos, acting as B4 Floor Officer 

#1, approached cell B4-110 for a random cell search. Cell B4-110 was assigned 

to Petitioner, who was not present, and Inmate Anguiano was present. Inmate 

Anguiano was cuffed, escorted out, and subjected to an unclothed search with 

negative results for contraband. Officer Ramos returned to the cell and searched 

it, finding a white crystal substance wrapped in clear plastic on the upper shelf 

belonging to the upper bunk. He took possession of the substance, concluded 

the search, and then turned the substance over to Officer R. Steele. 

Officer Ramos was present with Officer Steele when Officer Steele opened, 

weighed, tested, and photographed the bindle. Officer Steele obtained a weight 

of 1 gram, and, using a Presumptive Field Test (NIK Test), determined that the 

substance was methamphetamine. The substance was then packaged and 

everything was secured into evidence locker #7 in sub-evidence room #430-

144. 

The same day, Officer Steele had Petitioner provide a urine sample. He advised 

Petitioner of the results of the NIK Test, and Petitioner elected to reject the 

results. It appears that ultimately, on April 28, 2015, Petitioner opted to accept 

the NIK Test results. 

On June 1, 2015, a hearing was held before Senior Hearing Officer J. Coronado, 

during which Petitioner pled not guilty, stating “I’m not guilty because it’s not 

mine.” Inmate Anguiano appeared at the hearing, and acknowledged ownership 

of the contraband, stating that he obtained it a few minutes after Petitioner left 

the cell. 

The Senior Hearing Officer found Petitioner guilty of violation of Cal. Code 

Regs., tit. 15, § 3016, subd. (a) POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED 

SUBSTANCE – METHAMPHETAMINE based on the Officers’ reports, the 

physical evidence, and the testimony of Petitioner and Inmate Anguiano. 

Petitioner was assessed penalties consistent with a Division “B” offense. 

Petitioner argues that there is insufficient evidence the drugs were within his 

possession or under his control [because of] the fact he was forced to double 

Case 3:16-cv-02948-MMA-PCL Document 11 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
3 

16cv2948-MMA (PCL) 

 

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

cell and his cellmate confessed to ownership of the drugs. Petitioner includes a 

copy of a declaration from Inmate Anguiano in which he reaffirms his 

ownership of the drugs and Petitioner’s lack of knowledge. 

Petitioner takes issue with the concept of “constructive possession” which is 

frequently the basis for findings of guilt in CDCR Form 115 proceedings 

involving the existence of contraband in relatively confined areas shared by 

more than one inmate, for example, two inmate cells. The case that provides the 

answer to Petitioner’s question is In re v. Zepeda (4th Dist., 2006) 141 Cal. App. 

4th 1493. That case held that merely by virtue of being an occupant of the cell, 

the petitioner had constructive possession of contraband sufficient to warrant 

the disciplinary measures imposed. (Id., at 1499-1500.) 

The court’s review of the evidence in these cases is limited to whether the 

decision of the hearing officer is supported by some evidence. (In re v. Zepeda, 

supra, 141 Cal. App. 4th 1493, 1493.). 

(Lodgment 4, at 1-3.) 

 Petitioner then appealed the Superior Court’s ruling to the California Court of 

Appeal. The Justices issued the following ruling: 

In 2015, petitioner Francisco Rodriguez was incarcerated at Calipatria State 

Prison, where he was found guilty of a rules violation for possession of a 

controlled substance and assessed a forfeiture of custody credits. Rodriguez 

contends there is insufficient evidence to support the decision of the senior 

hearing officer because the narcotics belonged to his cellmate and he was 

outside the cell at the time of the search. 

Rodriguez is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. “[T]he requirements of due 

process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison 

disciplinary board to revoke good time credits.” (Superintendent v. Hill (1985) 

472 U.S. 445, 455.) The report of the correctional officer that the controlled 

substance was found in a common area of Rodriguez’s prison cell in an area 

readily accessible to both inmates constitutes “some evidence” he committed 

the disciplinary violation. Rodriguez’s “reliance on the evidence that supports 

his assertion not to have known about the [controlled substance], such as his 

cellmate’s acknowledgment of ownership and [Rodriguez’s] own claim of 

innocence, does not change the analysis under Hill. Hill emphasizes that the 

Case 3:16-cv-02948-MMA-PCL Document 11 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
4 

16cv2948-MMA (PCL) 

 

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

reviewing court is not to engage in an ‘examination of the entire record’ or 

‘weighing of the [conflicting] evidence.’ [Citation.] Rather, the narrow role 

assigned to the reviewing court is solely to determine whether there is ‘any 

evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the 

disciplinary board.’ [Citation.] Here, there is such evidence, even if, as 

[Rodriguez] contends, there is other evidence that supports his assertion of 

innocence.” (In re Zepeda (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1493, 1500.) 

(Lodgment 6.) 

 Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the California 

Supreme Court, in which he alleged the same claims he has advanced in his current 

federal Petition. (Lodgment 7.) On November 9, 2016, the California Supreme Court 

denied Petitioner’s habeas petition without comment. (Lodgment 8.) 

III. DISCUSSION 

Petitioner raises one ground in his Petition. He argues that there was “insufficient 

evidence that drugs were in his possession or under his control aside from the fact he was 

forced to double cell and his cellmate confessed to ownership of the drugs.” (Doc. 1, at 

3.) Respondent argues that Petitioner failed to establish that the state court misapplied 

clearly established federal law. (Doc. 8, at 6.) 

A. Standard of Review

This Petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). Under 

AEDPA, a habeas petition will not be granted with respect to any claim adjudicated on 

the merits by the state court unless that adjudication: (1) resulted in a decision that was 

contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; or 

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in 

light of the evidence presented at the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Early 

v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). In deciding a state prisoner’s habeas petition, a federal 

court is not called upon to decide whether it agrees with the state court’s determination; 

Case 3:16-cv-02948-MMA-PCL Document 11 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
5 

16cv2948-MMA (PCL) 

 

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

rather, the court applies an extraordinarily deferential review, inquiring only whether the 

state court’s decision was objectively unreasonable. See Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 

1, 4 (2003); Medina v. Hornung, 386 F.3d 872, 877 (9th Cir. 2004). 

A federal habeas court may grant relief under the “contrary to” clause if the state court 

applied a rule different from the governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases, or if it 

decided a case differently than the Supreme Court on a set of materially indistinguishable 

facts. See Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). The court may grant relief under the 

“unreasonable application” clause if the state court correctly identified the governing 

legal principle from Supreme Court decisions but unreasonably applied those decisions to 

the facts of a particular case. Id. Additionally, the “unreasonable application” clause 

requires that the state court decision be more than incorrect or erroneous; to warrant 

habeas relief, the state court’s application of clearly established federal law must be 

“objectively unreasonable.” See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003). The Court 

may also grant relief if the state court’s decision was based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 

Where there is no reasoned decision from the state’s highest court, the Court “looks 

through” to the last reasoned state court decision and presumes it provides the basis for 

the higher court’s denial of a claim or claims. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 

805-06 (1991). If the dispositive state court order does not “furnish a basis for its 

reasoning,” federal habeas courts must conduct an independent review of the record to 

determine whether the state court’s decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application 

of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (overruled on other grounds by Andrade, 538 U.S. at 75-76); accord Himes v. 

Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003). However, a state court need not cite 

Supreme Court precedent when resolving a habeas corpus claim. See Early, 537 U.S. at 

8. “[S]o long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the state-court decision contradicts 

Case 3:16-cv-02948-MMA-PCL Document 11 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
6 

16cv2948-MMA (PCL) 

 

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

[Supreme Court precedent,]” id., the state court decision will not be “contrary to” clearly 

established federal law. Id. Clearly established federal law, for purposes of § 2254(d), 

means “the governing principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time 

the state court renders its decision.” Andrade, 538 U.S. at 72. 

B. Analysis 

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the state courts misapplied clearly 

established federal law when rejecting his claim that he was unconstitutionally 

disciplined for methamphetamine being present in his prison cell. Within the context of 

institutional disciplinary matters, the U.S. Supreme Court has pronounced that inmates 

who are subjected to a loss of credits through a disciplinary proceeding are not entitled to 

the full panoply of rights afforded to defendants in a criminal case but are only permitted 

certain minimal procedural protections under the Due Process Clause. See Wolff v. 

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). With regard to the level of proof to support a 

disciplinary finding, Due Process requires that the decision be supported by “some 

evidence.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985). The only relevant question 

under the minimally stringent “some evidence” test is whether there is any reliable 

evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary 

board. Id. at 455-456; Cato v. Rushan, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1987). So long as the 

record is “not so devoid of evidence that the findings of the disciplinary board were 

without support or otherwise arbitrary,” the petition must be denied. Hill, 472 U.S. at 

457. In other words, the “Consitution does not require evidence that logically precludes 

any conclusion but the one reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. 

Here, Petitioner claims that the underlying disciplinary decision that resulted in his 

loss of good time credits was devoid of any evidentiary support. (Doc. 1.) However, the 

record demonstrates that the disciplinary decision was based in large part on the reporting 

officer’s documentation of how he found the methamphetamine and the fact that it was 

Case 3:16-cv-02948-MMA-PCL Document 11 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
7 

16cv2948-MMA (PCL) 

 

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

found in an area that was equally accessible to both Petitioner and his cellmate. 

(Lodgments 1 and 2.) The state courts concluded that this evidence constitutes more than 

the required modicum of evidence necessary to uphold the disciplinary decision that 

resulted in Petitioner’s loss of good time credits. (Lodgments 4, 6, 8.) Even if there is 

another rational decision that could have been reached by the disciplinary board – that the 

drugs actually belonged to his cellmate –the “Consitution does not require evidence that 

logically precludes any conclusion but the one reached by the disciplinary board.” Thus, 

because the state courts properly applied the “some evidence” standard when they 

rejected Petitioner’s habeas claim, the state court decision cannot be considered to be 

contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. The 

Petition should be denied. 

Case 3:16-cv-02948-MMA-PCL Document 11 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
8 

16cv2948-MMA (PCL) 

 

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

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 

The court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District Judge 

Anello under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule HC.2 of the United State Distrct 

Court for the Southern District of California. For the reasons outlined, IT IS HEREBY 

RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order (1) approving and adopting this Report 

and Recommendation, and (2) directing that the Petition be DENIED. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any party of this action may file written 

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parites no later than November 27, 

2017. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections with the specified time may waive 

their right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s Order. See Turner v. Duncan, 

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATE: DATE: November 9, 2017 

 

 Peter C. Lewis 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-02948-MMA-PCL Document 11 Filed 11/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8