Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01639/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01639-1/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 

FILED' 

I SEP 11 2011 I 

CLERK, U.S. DI URT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT UII.1W1LrrunNIA 

F!N PUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RUBEN DARIO GARCIA, JR. [CDC No. CASE NO. 11cv1639-WQH-KSC 

J-73373], ORDER 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

GEORGE E. NEOTTI, Warden, 

Res ondent. 

HAYES, Judge: 

The matter before the Court is the review ofthe Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

15) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford recommending that 

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.7) be granted in part and denied in part. 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner Ruben Dario Garcia, Jr. is currently serving a prison term ofseven and onehalfyears plus life without the possibility ofparole following his conviction in state court of 

first degree murder, attempted voluntary manslaughter, kidnaping, attempted kidnaping, 

forcible rape, and two counts of assault. (Lodgment No.1; ECF No. 15 at 2). 

On November 10,2009, at a prison disciplinary hearing, Petitioner was found guilty of 

wearing state-issued pants with "manufactured pockets" in violation of Section 3011 ofthe 

California Code ofRegulations. (Lodgment No.2; ECF No. 15 at 2). Petitioner was assessed 

the following penalties: (l) a forfeiture of thirty days of work time credit; and (2) a fine of 

$15.55 for the replacement ofthe damaged pants. Id. 

- 1 - llcvI639-WQH-KSC 

Case 3:11-cv-01639-WQH-KSC Document 18 Filed 09/11/12 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 

On July 19,2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No.1). Petitioner contends that he was denied due 

process at the prison disciplinary hearing on the grounds that: (I) he was "arbitrarily 

adjudicat[ ed]" for altering state clothing and was forced to forfeit thirty days of work time 

credit after he was denied a fair and impartial disciplinary hearing; (2) the evidence to support 

the finding that Petitioner altered the state clothing was insufficient; (3) the decision to impose 

a forfeiture ofthirty days ofwork time credits and a fine of$15.55 was arbitrary and unlawful; 

and (4) the California courts applied California law in an arbitrary and unlawful manner when 

they upheld the hearing officer's decision. (ECF No.1 at 6-16). 

On October 25, 2011, Respondent Neotti filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition 

contending that Petitioner failed to state a federal claim. (ECF No.7). On November 16, 

2011, Petitioner filed an opposition. (ECF No.9). 

On July 27, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation 

recommending that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part 

(ECF. No. 15 at 6). The Magistrate Judge recommended that: 

... 2. Grounds One and Two of the Petition be DISMISSED without 

leave to amend to the extent petitioner alleges a violation of due process based 

on a liberty interest in avoiding a forfeiture of work time credits; insufficient 

evidence to support the charge of altering state clothing; and a failure to follow 

the minimum procedural requirements ofdue process set forth in Wolff, 481 U.S. 

at 564-567; 

3. Ground One ofthe Petition be DISMISSED with leave to amend 

to the extent petitioner alleges that he was falsely charged with altering state 

clothing in retaliation for previous grievances he filed against staff members 

who acted in concert to prosecute him on the false charge; 

4. Ground One ofthe Petition be DISMISSED with leave to amend 

and without prejudice to the extent it alleges a violation ofdue process based on 

a liberty interest that affects the duration ofthe sentence and bias or impartiality 

on the part of the hearing officer who presided over the hearing on tIie charge 

of altenng state clothing; and 

5. Grounds One, Three, and Four of the Petition be DISMISSED 

without leave to amend to the extent they allege that prison officials and the 

California courts failed to follow or misapplied California law. 

(Id. at 12-13). 

The Magistrate Judge stated: "no later than August 17, 2012 any party to this action 

- 2 - IlcvI639-WQH-KSC 

Case 3:11-cv-01639-WQH-KSC Document 18 Filed 09/11/12 Page 2 of 4
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties ... [A ]ny reply to the 

2 objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than August 31, 

3 2012." Id. at 13. Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

4 DISCUSSION 

The duties ofthe district court in connection with a Report and Recommendation ofa 

6 Magistrate Judge are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 

7 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object to a Report and Recommendation, "[a] judge of 

8 the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions ofthe [Report and 

9 Recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court need not review 

11 the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Wangv. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.l3 (9th 

12 Cir. 2005); Us. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A district 

13 court may "accept, reject, or modifY, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 

14 made by the magistrate judge." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

In this case, neither party objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

16 Recommendation. This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 

17 The Magistrate Judge correctly found that federal habeas jurisdiction is not established by the 

18 allegations in the Petition. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner "failed 

19 to allege a cognizable claim ... under section 1983" in each ofhis four grounds for relief and 

that the Motion to Dismiss should be granted. (ECF No. 15 at 6). 

21 CONCLUSION 

22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 

23 II (ECF No. 15) is adopted in its entirety. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.7) is 

24 GRANTED. It is further ordered that the Petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend Ground 

One, to "the extent it alleges a violation of due process based on a liberty interest that affects 

2611 the duration of the sentence." (ECF No. 15 at 13). The remainder of the Petition is 

2711 DISMISSED without leave to amend. No later than sixty (60) days from the date this Order 

28 II is filed, Petitioner may file an amended petition. Ifno amended petition is filed, the Court will 

-3- llcv1639-WQH-KSC 

Case 3:11-cv-01639-WQH-KSC Document 18 Filed 09/11/12 Page 3 of 4
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

-I 

1 /I direct the Clerk of Court to close this case and enter judgment in favor ofRespondent. 

2 

3 

411 DATED: ~7 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

- 4 - llcv1639-WQH-KSC 

Case 3:11-cv-01639-WQH-KSC Document 18 Filed 09/11/12 Page 4 of 4