Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00958/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00958-3/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARDO ESTRADA,

Petitioner,

v.

D.G. ADAMS,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-00958 LJO DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

[Doc. 6]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 INTRODUCTION

Although Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of

Corrections pursuant to a criminal conviction, in the instant federal petition, Petitioner is

challenging an institutional disciplinary action in which he was found guilty of disobeying a

direct order in violation of California Code of Regulations title 15, section 3005(b). Petitioner

was assessed a credit forfeiture of 30 days, however, it was subsequently restored. 

Pursuant to this Court’s order of July 23, 2007, Respondent filed the instant motion to

dismiss on September 21, 2007. (Court Doc. 6.) Petitioner filed an opposition on November 20,

2007. (Court Doc. 11.)

//

//

Case 1:07-cv-00958-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 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

2

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Standard for Motion to Dismiss

The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition . . .

that the petition is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also 

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). The power vested in district courts to enter

summary dismissals in this manner demonstrates clear Congressional intent to provide Article III

judges with “ample discretionary authority to tailor the proceedings to dispose quickly,

efficiently, and fairly of first habeas petitions that lack substantial merit, while preserving more

extensive proceedings for those petitions raising serious questions.” Lonchar v. Thomas, 517

U.S. 314, 324-326 (1996).

B. Failure to State a Claim Warranting Federal Habeas Relief

A habeas corpus petition is the exclusive federal remedy for a prisoner to challenge the

“legality or duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9 Cir. 1991); th

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A habeas petition, however, is not proper where, as here,

the fact or duration of confinement is not involved. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78

(2005). Furthermore, there is no basis for federal habeas jurisdiction where a successful

challenge to a prison disciplinary hearing will not necessarily shorten an inmate’s sentence. 

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9 Cir. 2003). th

As Respondent submits, on October 3, 2005, Petitioner was issued a rules violation report

for disobeying a direct order. A disciplinary hearing was held on November 7, 2005, wherein

Petitioner was found guilty and ordered to forfeiture 30 days of credit. Generally, the forfeiture

of credits effects the duration of Petitioner’s confinement, however, in this instance, the forfeited

credit was subsequently restored on January 30, 2007. (Exhibit 1, Calculation Worksheet, dated

8/21/07; Institutional Chronology History.) Petitioner concedes such in his opposition.

(Opposition, at 2.) Consequently, a favorable decision in this case would have no effect on the

duration of Petitioner’s confinement. Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-877 (9 Cir. 1990). th

Although in his opposition, Petitioner requests that the rules violation be expunged from his

Case 1:07-cv-00958-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 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

3

record, this would not effect the length of his sentence and any future adverse use of the violation

is speculative, at this juncture. Accordingly, the petition must be dismissed as it fails to present a

cognizable claim warranting federal habeas relief. 

RECOMMENDATION

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED; and

2. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a

cognizable claim.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 27, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00958-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 11/28/07 Page 3 of 3