Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02447/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02447-1/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

16cv2447-CAB-NLS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO MUNOZ,

Petitioner,

v.

RAYMOND MADDEN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2447-CAB-NLS

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 9] 

AND DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS [Doc. No. 5]

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes, filed on March 2, 2017, recommending that the Court 

grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 9.] On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed 

objections to the R&R. [Doc. No. 13.] Respondent has not filed any reply to the 

objections. Having considered the parties’ arguments and for the reasons stated herein, 

the Court disagrees with the R&R and DECLINES to adopt it. Instead, Respondent’s 

motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 5] is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner is a state inmate challenging an institutional disciplinary action in which 

he was found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia. Specifically, he contends that 

prison officials improperly found he constructively possessed drug paraphernalia found in 

his cell and failed to identify any evidence showing that Petitioner knew the drug 

Case 3:16-cv-02447-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16cv2447-CAB-NLS

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

paraphernalia was in his cell. [Doc. No. 1 at 6.] In the motion to dismiss, Respondent 

argues that the Petition fails to state a federal claim because Petitioner is essentially 

asking the court to review a state-court determination on a question of state law. [Doc. 

No. 5-1 at 2.] Respondent is correct that the Petition does seek adjudication of whether 

prison officials misapplied the criteria for “constructive possession” under California 

Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3000 [Doc. No. 1 at 8], and whether they 

mistakenly concluded that he was responsible for his cellmate’s property, in violation of 

California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3022 [Doc. No. 1 at 9-10]. To the extent 

the Petition claims a violation of state law, there is no federal claim. Estelle v. McGuire, 

502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991).

However, a prisoner may challenge a prison disciplinary conviction by petition for 

writ of habeas corpus if the conviction resulted in the loss of good time credits because 

credits impact the duration of the prisoner's confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 

475, 487–88, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973) (suit seeking restoration of good time credits was 

“within the core of habeas corpus in attacking the very duration of their physical 

confinement itself”). While prisoners may not be wholly deprived of their constitutional 

rights, “there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives 

and the provisions of the Constitution ....” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S. 

Ct. 2963 (1974). “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, 

and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Id. A 

prisoner's due process rights must be accommodated to the “legitimate institutional 

needs” of a prison. Bostic, 884 F.2d at 1269 (overruled on other grounds by Nettles, ___ 

F.3d ____, 2016 WL 4072465 (July 26, 2016)), citing Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 

445, 454–455, 105 S. Ct. 2768 [ ] (1984). 

With respect to prison disciplinary proceedings, the minimum procedural 

requirements that must be met are: (1) written notice of the charges; (2) at least 24 hours 

between the time the prisoner receives written notice and the time of the hearing, so that 

the prisoner may prepare his defense; (3) a written statement by the fact finders of the 

Case 3:16-cv-02447-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16cv2447-CAB-NLS

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

evidence they rely on and reasons for taking disciplinary action; (4) the right of the 

prisoner to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, when 

permitting him to do so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or 

correctional goals; and (5) legal assistance to the prisoner where the prisoner is illiterate 

or the issues presented are legally complex. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563–71. Confrontation and 

cross examination are not generally required. Id. at 567.

In addition, due process requires that the decision be supported by “some 

evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, 105 S. Ct. 2768, citing United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. 

Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106, 47 S. Ct. 302, 71 L.Ed. 560 (1927). In 

Hill, the United States Supreme Court explained that this standard is met if “there was 

some evidence from which the conclusion of the administrative tribunal could be deduced 

....” Id. Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require an examination of 

the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of 

the evidence.” Id. at 455–56. Instead, “the relevant question is whether there is any 

evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary 

board.” Id.

Here, while Petitioner does appear to seek adjudication of state law claims, he also 

alleges that his “right to due process was violated” [Doc. No. 1 at 6] and that there was 

“no evidence” that Petitioner was aware of the contraband [Doc. No. 1 at 8]. Thus, 

Petitioner has made sufficient allegations to state a federal due process claim under Hill, 

472 U.S. at 455. Whether there was, in fact, “some evidence” to support the decision of 

the hearing officer is a merits question that is not appropriately addressed in a motion to 

dismiss. 

Respondent also argues that Petitioner cites to a Seventh Circuit case that sets forth 

a rule that has not been adopted by this circuit. [Doc. No. 5-1 at 3.] Petitioner cites to 

Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 720-721 (7th Cir. 1996), where the Seventh Circuit ruled 

that where a prison inmate produces exculpatory evidence that directly undermines 

reliability of evidence in the record pointing to his violation of prison regulations, he is 

Case 3:16-cv-02447-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16cv2447-CAB-NLS

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

entitled under due process to an explanation of why disciplinary officials disregarded 

exculpatory evidence and refused to find it persuasive. While that specific rule has not 

necessarily been adopted by this Circuit (see Hall v. Allison, 2013 WL 1829816 (C.D. 

Cal. Mar. 5, 2013)), there are due process requirements regarding prison disciplinary 

convictions under Hill and Wolff. By alleging that there was “no evidence” to support the 

conviction, Petitioner has sufficiently pled a federal due process claim. Whether that 

allegation can be proven is not appropriately addressed in a motion to dismiss.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DECLINES to adopt the Report and 

HEREBY DENIES the motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02447-CAB-NLS Document 14 Filed 05/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4