Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02621/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02621-2/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 

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAAHDI COLEMAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RICK HILL, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:12-cv-2621 KJM DAD P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On September 19, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 

were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. In his objections, petitioner argues that he is not 

challenging his rules violation as improperly classified, but that the charge of possession of 

tobacco is not punishable by the loss of time credits. 

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court 

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 

Case 2:12-cv-02621-KJM-DAD Document 14 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

analysis.1 The court writes separately to emphasize that exhibits appended to the petition 

demonstrate that petitioner was provided with notice prior to the hearing, that the charge of 

possession of tobacco was being charged as a serious rules violation. See Ex. 1 to Petition (ECF 

No. 1). Moreover, as the Sacramento County Superior Court explained in its decision denying 

petitioner’s state petition for writ of habeas corpus, 15 C.C.R. § 3315(a)(1)(B) authorizes 

classification of a prison rules violation “as serious if it presents a hazard to prison security” and 

in this case the amount of tobacco found in petitioner’s cell “had a high monetary value and 

could be a threat to prison security.” See ECF No. 1, In re the Matter of Saahdi Coleman on 

Habeas Corpus, at 2. The facts of the petition at bar do not support petitioner’s claim that his loss 

of time credits was wholly unauthorized by state law. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The order inadvertently filed in this case on January 13, 2015 (docket no. 12) is 

vacated and replaced by this order; 

2. The findings and recommendations filed September 19, 2013, are adopted in full; 

 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is summarily denied as provided by Rule 4 of the 

Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and 

 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 

2253. 

DATED: January 13, 2015. 

 

1

 The court corrects a typographical error p. 2 l.5 of the findings and recommendations; the 

correct citation is to § 3315 of title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. 

Case 2:12-cv-02621-KJM-DAD Document 14 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 2