Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01058/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01058-2/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 -

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

ADAM ORTIZ,

Petitioner,

vs.

RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,

Respondent.

CASE NO. 18cv1058-LAB (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [Dkt. 19] AND 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Petitioner Adam Ortiz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for a 

Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Ortiz alleges that the California 

Department of Corrections violated his due process rights when it stripped him of good 

time credits for a disciplinary violation despite what Ortiz characterizes as conflicts in the 

reporting officer’s statements. Per Civil Local Rule HC.2, the Petition was referred to 

Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin for a report and recommendation (“R&R”). On 

December 17, 2018, Judge Dembin issued his R&R recommending that Ortiz’s petition

be denied and that his request for an evidentiary hearing be denied as well. Ortiz objects 

to Judge Dembin’s recommendation. For the reasons below, the Court OVERRULES

Ortiz’s objections and ADOPTS IN FULL Judge Dembin’s R&R. 

The Court reviews de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to 

which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court may “accept, reject, or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate 

judge.” Id. The statute makes clear that “the district judge must review the magistrate 

Case 3:18-cv-01058-LAB-MDD Document 22 Filed 01/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
- 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

27

28

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Judge Dembin’s R&R sets out the factual background of the case, so the Court 

does not repeat it here. Oritz’s sole objection is that Judge Dembin’s R&R “ignores that 

Petitioner was deprived of due process of law when the hearing officer found him guilty 

despite conflicts between statements made by the correctional officer in his report and 

his answers to questions posed to him by Ortiz.” Objection, Dkt. 20, at 4. Whether Ortiz’s 

due process rights were violated is the ultimate issue before the court, so Ortiz’s objection 

is, in effect, an objection to the entirety of the report and recommendation. But Ortiz does 

not go further to explain specifically how Judge Dembin’s recommendation got things 

wrong. He alleges that the cases cited “do not support the Magistrate’s findings,” but he 

does not explain which cases he is referring to or how Judge Dembin’s recommendation 

misinterpreted them. He alleges that Judge Dembin did not “give full and adequate 

consideration of the facts that surround[] each of Petitioner’s constitutional claims,” but 

does not say which facts were given inadequate consideration. Finally, he says the 

recommendation “fails to give full and complete consideration of Petitioner’s claims in light 

of the state court record,” but does not explain what aspect of the state court record Judge 

Dembin gave short shrift. In short, Ortiz makes only conclusory objections that do not 

guide this Court in determining whether Judge Dembin’s recommendation was erroneous. 

See Ali v. Grounds, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1249 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (“Only objections that 

reference specific portions of the report and recommendation will trigger de novo review—

general or conclusory objections do not suffice.”) (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d 

Cir. 1984)).

To the extent Ortiz claims that Judge Dembin misapplied Supreme Court 

precedent in Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), and Wolff v. Mcdonnell, 418 

U.S. 539 (1974), the Court disagrees. In Hill, the Supreme Court made clear that “a 

decision to revoke [good time] credits must be supported by some evidence” in order to 

satisfy the minimum requirements of procedural due process. Hill, 472 U.S. at 447 

Case 3:18-cv-01058-LAB-MDD Document 22 Filed 01/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

(emphasis added). That standard was the same one applied by the California Court of 

Appeal when it determined that “[t]he report of the correctional officer that he found in 

Ortiz’s prison cell two sharpened metal cylinders and plastic handles that obviously could 

be assembled into stabbing devices, the photographs of those items, and Ortiz’s 

admission the items were his, constitute ‘some evidence’ that he violated” prison 

regulations. Dkt. 17-5 at 2. The role of this Court is not to weigh evidence itself or 

examine the entire record; the role of the reviewing court is simply to determine whether 

there is “any evidence” that could support the disciplinary action. Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. 

Here that standard is met. The Court likewise dismisses Ortiz’s suggestion that Judge 

Dembin’s recommendation misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolff. That case 

simply stands for the proposition that good time credits are a liberty interest and that their 

revocation must therefore be guided by the standards of due process. See Wolff, 418 

U.S. at 558. As noted above, however, due process is satisfied if there is “some evidence” 

of Petitioner’s wrongdoing, and the Court has already concluded that there was. Hill, 472 

U.S. at 447. Accordingly, Judge Dembin did not err in recommending that Ortiz’s Petition 

for Habeas Corpus be denied. 

For the reasons above, Ortiz’s objections are OVERRULED and Judge Dembin’s

R&R is ADOPTED IN FULL. Dkt. 19. Ortiz’s request for an evidentiary hearing is 

DENIED. Ortiz’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. The clerk is directed to 

enter judgment in favor of Respondent and close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01058-LAB-MDD Document 22 Filed 01/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3