Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00142/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00142-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE WILSON, III, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:07-cv-00142-LJO-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED

HEREIN (Doc. 7)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

AMEND PETITION (Doc. 6)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On May 10, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

proceed only on Petitioner’s due process claim regarding the 2005

disciplinary hearing; all other claims be DISMISSED for failure to

allege grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus

relief; and, Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition be DENIED as

the claim raised therein is not cognizable. These Findings and

Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days from

the date of service of that order. On May 22, 2007, Petitioner

Case 1:07-cv-00142-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 10/04/07 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

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In his objections, Petitioner contends that Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may not be applied to the

instant Section 2241 petition. Petitioner is mistaken. The Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ

of habeas corpus other than those brought under § 2254 at the

Court’s discretion. See, Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. Civil Rule 81(a)(2) provides that the rules are

“applicable to proceedings for . . . habeas corpus . . . to the

extent that the practice in such proceedings is not set forth in

statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the

practice of civil actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P 81(a)(2). 

Petitioner further contends that he was not given adequate

notice of his disciplinary hearing in violation of his due process

rights. Petitioner attempts to clarify his claim that he was not

given 24 hours notice of the hearing as required under Wolff. As

clarified, Petitioner's claim is cognizable and shall proceed

forward. However, Petitioner's claim that the Unit Disciplinary

Committee did not conduct the initial disciplinary hearing within

three working days in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 541.15(b), does not

raise a cognizable federal claim under § 2241. The Constitution

only requires that prisoners be afforded those procedures mandated

by Wolff at a prison disciplinary hearing; it does not require that

prison officials comply with their own more generous procedures or

time limitations. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415,1419-1420

(1994) abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472

(1995); Rogers v. Okin, 738 F.2d 1, 8 (1 Cir. 1984). st

With regard to Petitioner's challenge to his 1995 disciplinary

Case 1:07-cv-00142-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 10/04/07 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

 However, Petitioner is advised that the Court is not making any ruling 1

whatsoever as to the timeliness of this claim, and Respondent is free to argue that

it is untimely.

3

hearing, Petitioner contends that he has been attempting to appeal

that decision, however, "the Bureau of Prisons would not properly

address his claims and supporting issues of facts, thereby

depriving him available administrative relief." (Objections, at 8.) 

Based on Petitioner's allegations raised in his objections, the

Court cannot determine whether his challenge to the 1995

disciplinary hearing is barred by the statute of limitations, and

it shall therefore proceed forward. Consequently, Petitioner's 1

motion for leave to file a supplement to the petition, filed on

March 28, 2007, shall be granted, as it addresses the claim

regarding his 1995 disciplinary hearing. (See Court Doc. 6.) 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 10, 2007, as

modified herein, are ADOPTED IN FULL, as modified herein;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus proceed only on

Petitioner’s due process claim regarding the 1995 and 2005

disciplinary hearings;

3. All other claims are DISMISSED for failure to allege

Case 1:07-cv-00142-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 10/04/07 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

grounds that would entitle Petitioner to habeas corpus relief; and,

4. Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition, filed March

28, 2007, is GRANTED, and shall be construed as a supplement to the

initial petition filed on January 26, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00142-LJO-DLB Document 11 Filed 10/04/07 Page 4 of 4