Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02482/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02482-0/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

SIMON F. RANTEESI,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT.,

Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-2482 KJM CKD P

ORDER &

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 

the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Petitioner challenges a March 2008 disciplinary conviction for refusing to work in 

violation of California Code of Regulations Title 15, § 3041(a), resulting in the loss of thirty days 

of work-time credits. Petitioner asserts that his due process rights were violated because prison 

officials denied his request to have Correctional Officer Cunningham appear as a witness at his 

disciplinary hearing. 

An inmate’s rights arising under federal law concerning disciplinary proceedings which 

result in the loss of good conduct sentence credit are, generally speaking, limited to the following: 

Case 2:13-cv-02482-KJM-CKD Document 8 Filed 01/27/14 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

1) Advance written notice of the charges; 

2) An opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call 

witnesses and present documentary evidence in his or her defense; 

3) A written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the 

disciplinary action; and 

4) That the findings of the prison disciplinary board be supported by some evidence in the 

record. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). 

Although an inmate has a right to call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing, certain 

witnesses may be denied on the basis of “irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards presented 

in individual cases.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). There is no due process 

violation for refusing a prisoner’s request to call witnesses whose testimony would be repetitive, 

irrelevant, or unnecessary. Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 1989); Pannell v. 

McBride, 306 F.3d 499, 503 (7th Cir. 2002); see, e.g., Jones v. Virga, No. 2:12-cv-1138 LKK 

GGH P, 2013 WL 6383248, **8-9 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (no due process violation where petitioner 

submitted no evidence that requested witness was relevant to proceedings). Additionally, 

although useful, prison officials are not required to state reasons for disallowing a witness’

testimony. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566.

Here, petitioner presents no evidence that Officer Cunningham’s testimony would have 

been relevant to his defense at the disciplinary hearing. Rather, the record indicates that “CO 

Cunningham was not the Reporting Employee” on the day of the incident (ECF No. 1 at 35), and 

that the purported content of Cunningham’s testimony would not have changed the result of the 

hearing (see id. at 8-9, 31-32, 38-39). Moreover, the record of the March 2008 disciplinary 

hearing does not indicate that petitioner requested Cunningham as a witness, or that such a 

request was denied. (Id. at 38.)

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for 

summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and 

any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Because 

it is plain from the petition and appended exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas 

Case 2:13-cv-02482-KJM-CKD Document 8 Filed 01/27/14 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

relief on his due process claim, the undersigned will recommend that the petition be summarily 

dismissed pursuant to Rule 4. 

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 

right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 

(9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 

of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 

In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 

appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted; and

2. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is denied.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition be summarily dismissed pursuant to 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases under Section 2254.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. 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). 

Dated: January 27, 2014

2/rant2482.R4_fr

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-02482-KJM-CKD Document 8 Filed 01/27/14 Page 3 of 3