Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01633/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01633-1/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Fox Joseph Salerno, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles Ryan; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1633-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Anderson’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R). (Doc. 16). For the reasons below, the Court will adopt the R&R.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (the “Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. §

2254. (Doc. 1). The Petition argues his due process rights were violated when (1) he was

convicted of a disciplinary violation without sufficient evidence; and (2) proper procedures

and process were not followed in the disciplinary hearings. (Doc. 1). Respondents answered

and Petitioner replied.

Petitioner is incarcerated in the Arizona Department of Corrections. In a January 11,

2008 letter, Petitioner accused a correctional officer “CO III A. Sambora” (“Sambora”) of

failing to process Petitioner’s grievance requests. (Doc. 8, Ex. A, at 38). Petitioner wrote

a letter to Sambora stating Petitioner was “going to contact a friend and find [her] home

address and . . . drop off [Petitioner’s] grievance personally.” (Id.). The letter also stated

Case 2:10-cv-01633-ROS Document 19 Filed 11/23/11 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Petitioner was “going to cost [her] so much time, money and aggravation until [she] regret[s]

violating policy, “ and that “this is not a threat, it is a way to get you to do your job.” (Id.).

Upon receiving the letter, Sambora completed an information report and issued an

inmate disciplinary report charging Petitioner with a group B-04 disciplinary violation for

Extortion or Intimidation. (Doc. 8, Ex. A, at 34, 40). An extension of time was granted to

complete an investigation and due to a case backlog. (Id., Ex. A, at 43). On February 1,

2008, Sambora received an email from Criminal Investigations Unit Officer Mariscal. (Id.,

Ex. A, at 45). Mariscal informed Sambora about Petitioner’s statements in an unrelated

investigation. (Id.). Specifically, Petitioner stated “he was going to send a friend (exconvict) to [Sambora’s house] to scare [her] to give him his money for the lost items . . . .”

(Id., Ex. A, at 45).

On May 5, 2008, Petitioner pled not guilty and evidence was presented at a

disciplinary hearing. The disciplinary officer found “it is more probably true than not that

inmate Salerno #63416 committed the violation based on the [disciplinary report].” (Doc.

8, Ex. A, at 57). The hearing officer considered that Petitioner had admitted writing the

letter, and had “stated he was mad when he wrote the [letter].” (Id.). Petitioner appealed the

disciplinary officer’s decision, and it was affirmed. (Id., Ex. A, at 59, 61).

The R&R recommends the Court deny the Petition and deny the certificate of

appealability. The R&R found Petitioner was given notice, permitted to present evidence, and

received a written statement explaining the reasons for the disciplinary action and the

evidence relied upon. (Doc. 16, at 5-6); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974).

The R&R also found there was at least “some evidence” of Petitioner’s guilt of the

disciplinary charge. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). The R&R also found

the four-month delay in holding a disciplinary hearing did not violate Petitioner’s due process

rights. 

/ / /

ANALYSIS

Case 2:10-cv-01633-ROS Document 19 Filed 11/23/11 Page 2 of 4
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 -

A. Standard of Review

A district court “must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report

. . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A court

need review only those portions objected to by a party, meaning a court can adopt without

further review all unobjected to portions. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

B. R&R is Adopted in Full

Plaintiff objects to only one aspect of the R&R: the determination that the letter in

question amounted to a threat. (Doc. 17). Petitioner argues this determination was error

because: (1) “the court failed to consider [the] entire letter”; (2) the “disciplinary conviction

classified [the] letter as extortion” and “it is improper for [the] court to ignore extortion part

and only rule on threatening”; and (3) the R&R improperly took into account that Petitioner

is a prisoner and the letter was directed at a prison guard. (Id.).

Under Superintendent v. Hill, due process requires “some evidence” support the

administrative decision. 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). “An examination of the entire record is

not required nor is an independent assessment of the credibility of the witnesses or weighing

of the evidence.” Id. The question is whether the disciplinary board’s conclusion is support

by any evidence that bears some indicia of reliability. Id.; Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703,

704-05 (9th Cir. 1987). “[D]ue process is satisfied when the record contains some factual

information from which a committee can reasonably conclude that the information was

reliable.” Carillo v. Stainer, 1997 WL 16312, *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 1997). 

Here, there is “some evidence” the letter was a threat. In the letter, Petitioner stated

he was going to send a “friend” to “find [Sambora’s] home address and . . . drop off

[Petitioner’s] grievance personally.” The letter also stated Petitioner was “going to cost [her]

so much time, money and aggravation until [she] regret[s] violating policy,” and that this “is

a way to get you to do your job.” Petitioner also admitted to being “mad” when he wrote the

letter. This evidence satisfies the requirement that the administrative decision be supported

Case 2:10-cv-01633-ROS Document 19 Filed 11/23/11 Page 3 of 4
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 -

by “some evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 454. 

The R&R need not recite the entire letter to find “some evidence” of a threat. The fact

that the R&R upheld the disciplinary decision based on a threat rather than extortion also

does not change the fact that there was “some evidence” of a threat. Finally, Petitioner has

not cited any authority supporting his argument that his due process rights were violated

because the R&R acknowledged the “actors.” The circumstances of a statement may be

considered in determining whether the contents were threatening. As such, Petitioner’s

objection is without merit, and the R&R will be adopted in full.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED IN

FULL. The Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on appeal is denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 23rd day of November, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01633-ROS Document 19 Filed 11/23/11 Page 4 of 4