Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03407/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03407-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman03407_denyHC.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES NEWMAN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

M. CASTELLAWS, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-03407 JW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Folsom State Prison in

Represa, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a prison disciplinary hearing at Pelican Bay State

Prison (“PBSP”) that resulted in the forfeiture of good time credits. Finding the

petition stated a cognizable claim under § 2254, the Court ordered respondent to

show cause why the petition should not be granted. Respondent filed an answer, and

petitioner filed a traverse.

BACKGROUND

On April 22, 2005, while petitioner was incarcerated at PBSP, prison officials

were collecting DNA samples and palm prints in accordance with Proposition 69

Case 5:06-cv-03407-JW Document 10 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Proposition 69 amended California Penal Code §§ 295 and 296.

2

 A staff assistant was not assigned because petitioner spoke English, was

literate, and petitioner confirmed that staff assistance was not necessary. (Pet. Ex. A

at 3.) 

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman03407_denyHC.wpd 2

which required that inmates convicted of a felony or any sex or arson offense

provide DNA samples, including a Buccal swab sample and thumb and palm

print/impressions. The notice to inmates, which was posted in various sections of

the prison, notifying them of the mandatory submission of DNA samples stated:

“[I]f you have recently provided a DNA sample(s) or palm print, it may not be on

file with the Department of Justice, and you will be required to submit a DNA

sample(s) at this time.” (Resp’t Ex. 4 at 3.) Petitioner’s name was on a list which

identified that the Department of Justice did not have his palm print on file. (Resp’t

Ex. 4 at 2.) Petitioner agreed to submit to the DNA testing, but after providing a

saliva sample, refused to provide right and left palm prints. (Pet. 1.) Petitioner told

Correctional Officer Tackett that he had already provided both palm prints when he

was first committed and that the prints were already in his central file. Id. When the

officer again instructed petitioner to provide the palm prints, petitioner refused. Id.

Petitioner was then ordered back to his cell. Id. On April 29, 2005, petitioner was

issued a CDC Form 115 Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) charging him with

refusing to comply with § 296.1

 (Pet. Ex. A at 1.) 

Prior to the hearing held on May 3, 2005, petitioner was provided with notice

of the hearing and the charges against him. (Pet. Ex. A at 2.) At the hearing,

petitioner pled not guilty, but based on the evidence presented, including the RVR,

petitioner’s own testimony, and the fact that petitioner had prior notice of § 296 as

amended, petitioner was found guilty of the charged offense and assessed a sixty day

forfeiture of good time credits. Id. No investigative employee (“IE”) was assigned

to petitioner’s case, and no staff assistant was assigned to petitioner at the hearing.2

Id. Petitioner requested several witnesses, including the reporting officer, at the

Case 5:06-cv-03407-JW Document 10 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman03407_denyHC.wpd 3

hearing. Id.

Petitioner administratively exhausted his remedies through the prison appeals

process. Petitioner’s state habeas petition was summarily denied by the California

Supreme Court on April 26, 2006. (Pet. Ex. F.) Petitioner filed the instant federal

petition on May 25, 2006.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf

of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground

that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Jodges, 423U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A claim

which, if successful, would result in the restoration of time credits is properly

brought in habeas because success on such claims could result in the inmate’s earlier

release from prison. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner claims the following constitute due process violations at his

disciplinary hearing as grounds for federal habeas relief: 1) he was denied the right

to have witnesses appear in his defense; 2) he was denied his right to cross examine

a witness appearing against him; 3) he should have been assigned an IE to assist in

gathering information since petitioner was under housing restrictions which

prevented him from gathering his own information; 4) petitioner had no notice of

Proposition 69 which mandated the submission of DNA samples and palm print

impressions for all felons; and 5) the hearing officer failed to inquire whether

petitioner’s palm prints were already documented in PBSP case record. Of these

five claims, claims 1, 2, and 3 allege violations of procedural due process mandated

by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).

1– 3. Due Process

Case 5:06-cv-03407-JW Document 10 Filed 11/28/07 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman03407_denyHC.wpd 4

Due process requires five procedural protections in connection with

prison discipline that results in the forfeiture of time credits. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556.

First, “written notice of the charges must be given to the disciplinary-action

defendant in order to inform him of the charges and to enable him to marshal the

facts and prepare a defense.” Id. at 564. Second, “at least a brief period of time

after the notice, no less than 24 hours, should be allowed to the inmate to prepare for

the appearance before the [disciplinary committee].” Id. Third, “there must be a

‘written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons’ for the

disciplinary action.” Id. (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)). 

Fourth, “the inmate facing disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to call

witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to

do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.” Id.

at 566. Fifth, “[w]here an illiterate inmate is involved . . . or where the complexity

of the issues makes it unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the

evidence necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case, he should be free to

seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or . . . to have adequate substitute aid . . . from the

staff or from a[n] . . . inmate designated by the staff.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570. 

The record reveals, and petitioner does not dispute, that he received written

notice of the charges well over 24 hours prior to the hearing and that there was a

written statement as to the findings and reasoning of the disciplinary decision. (Pet.

Ex. A at 3.) Therefore, the first three procedural protections under Wolff were

satisfied in petitioner’s case. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564.

Petitioner’s first two claims regarding witnesses arise under Wolff’s fourth

requirement that a prisoner should be allowed to call witnesses in his defense. Id.

However, the right to present a defense is not absolute and prison officials retain

“the necessary discretion to keep the hearing within reasonable limits.” Id. The

record shows that petitioner requested four staff members as witnesses for the

hearing, including Officer Tackett, the reporting officer who issued the RVR. (Pet.

Case 5:06-cv-03407-JW Document 10 Filed 11/28/07 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman03407_denyHC.wpd 5

Ex. A. at 2.) Petitioner’s request for Officer Tackett to be called as a witness was

granted. Id. When asked what anticipated testimony the other staff members would

give, petitioner responded that they would testify that he was not provided with

adequate information prior to the DNA testing. Id. Under the authority of 15 Cal.

Code Regs. § 3315(e)(1)(B), the senior hearing officer (“SHO”) denied the request

for the remaining witnesses based on his conclusion that their anticipated testimony

was not relevant to the issues of the hearing. Id. 

These first two of petitioner’s claims are without merit. Petitioner was

permitted to have the reporting officer as a witness as he requested in accordance

with Wolff. See 418 U.S. at 564. While the eye-witness testimony of the reporting

officer is highly relevant to the issue of whether or not petitioner failed to submit

palm prints as mandated by Proposition 69, the same cannot be said of the

anticipated testimony of the other three witnesses – that petitioner did not have

adequate information prior to the DNA testing. There was sufficient evidence to

show that petitioner had notice of the DNA testing, and it is of no consequence

whether such information was “adequate.” The SHO’s decision to deny petitioner’s

request for three witnesses who would give irrelevant testimony was well within the

SHO’s discretion to keep the hearing within reasonable limits. Id. Accordingly, it

cannot be said that the SHO’s denial of petitioner’s request to call witnesses who

would give irrelevant testimony violated due process. Petitioner’s second claim that

he was denied his right to cross examine a witness appearing against him, namely

Officer Tackett, is without merit. The Court specifically held that the Due Process

Clause does not require that prisons allow inmates to cross-examine their accusers,

see id. at 567-68. 

Petitioner’s third claim is that due process was violated when he was denied

his right to an IE to investigate his case as housing restrictions prevented petitioner

from gathering his own information. Petitioner claims in his petition that an IE

should have been appointed in order to ascertain whether petitioner’s palm prints

Case 5:06-cv-03407-JW Document 10 Filed 11/28/07 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman03407_denyHC.wpd 6

were already on file as he claimed. Wolff states that whether an IE should be

appointed, which is the fifth procedural protection, depends on whether “an illiterate

inmate is involved... or whether the complexity of the issue makes it unlikely that

the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate

comprehension of the case.” 418 U.S. at 570. The record shows that petitioner is

not illiterate, and that an IE was not initially assigned because the issues were not

complex and the available information was sufficient. (Pet. Ex. A at 3.) Unlike his

claim in the instant petition, at the hearing petitioner stated that he requested an IE to

question all the staff he had requested as witnesses. The IE assignment was

ultimately denied because petitioner “failed to show an assigned IE would obtain

any additional, relevant information required for his defense or that his housing

restriction prevented [petitioner] from obtaining his own information.” Id. 

Petitioner’s claim that the failure to assign an IE to his case constitutes a

violation of due process is without merit. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how

he was unable to collect information on his own or that the information he would

have obtained through an IE was relevant to the disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner

claimed at the hearing that he wanted the IE to question staff members and that the

anticipated testimony those staff members would have shown that petitioner did not

have adequate information prior to the DNA testing. (Pet. Ex. A at 3.) As discussed

above, the anticipated testimony of the uncalled witnesses was irrelevant to the

issues of the proceedings. See supra at 5. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was

denied due process by not having an IE appointed to assist in gathering irrelevant

testimony. In the instant petition, petitioner claims that an IE was necessary to

ascertain whether his palm prints were already on file in PBSP. However, whether

or not his palm prints were already on file did not excuse him from submitting new

samples as his information was not on file with the Department of Justice. See

Resp’t Ex. 2 at 5; see also supra at 2. Consequently, petitioner was afforded all the

procedural due process mandated by Wolff. See 418 U.S. at 570. 

Case 5:06-cv-03407-JW Document 10 Filed 11/28/07 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman03407_denyHC.wpd 7

Additionally, the revocation of good-time credits does not comport with the

minimum requirements of procedural due process in Wolff unless the findings of the

prison disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the record. 

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). The standard for the modicum of

evidence required is met if there was some evidence from which the conclusion of

the administrative tribunal could be deduced. See id. at 455. An examination of the

entire record is not required nor is an independent assessment of the credibility of

witnesses or weighing of the evidence. See id. The relevant question is whether

there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the

disciplinary board. See id. The Ninth Circuit additionally has held that there must

be some indicia of reliability of the information that forms the basis for prison

disciplinary actions. See Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Here, the evidence of guilt consisted of a detailed statement by the reporting

officer who issued the RVR, petitioner’s own testimony at the hearing, and the fact

that petitioner did have prior notice of the DNA testing. (Pet. Ex. A at 4.) The

officer testified that all inmates, including petitioner, were given notice of the

mandatory submission of DNA samples and palm prints, and that when the officer

ordered petitioner to comply, petitioner refused by stating, “They already have my

palm prints and they do not need them again and I do not want to sign anything.” Id.

Furthermore, petitioner admitted at the hearing that he had not complied: “Had I

been provided with all of the application information requiring submission of the

test, I would have complied.” Id. Finally, the record shows that petitioner, contrary

to his claim, had prior notice of the mandatory testing; according to the second level

review of petitioner’s appeal on RVR at issue, petitioner admitted that he had seen

the notice, which he described as a typed note with no signature which, “[s]omebody

just typed... on their computer....” (Resp’t Ex. 4 at 1.) Accordingly, there was

sufficiently reliable evidence to find petitioner guilty of the charged offense to

satisfy the requirements of due process. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 454. 

Case 5:06-cv-03407-JW Document 10 Filed 11/28/07 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman03407_denyHC.wpd 8

4– 5. Remaining Claims

Petitioner’s fourth claim that he had no prior notice of Proposition 69

is without merit. As discussed in the paragraph above, petitioner admitted that he

saw the notice of the mandate under Proposition 69 that all felons would be required

to submit DNA samples and palm prints. (Resp’t Ex. 4 at 1.) 

Petitioner’s fifth claim that the SHO failed to inquire whether petitioner’s

palm prints were already documented in PBSP case record is without merit. The

notice to the inmates stated in part, “However, if you have recently provided a DNA

sample(s) or palm print, it may not be on file with the Department of Justice, and

you will be required to submit a DNA sample(s) at this time.” (Resp’t Ex. 4 at 3;

Resp’t Ex. 5 at 1.) Accordingly, petitioner was required to submit new samples even

if petitioner’s palm prints were already on file in PBSP because his prints were not

on file with the Department of Justice. See Resp’t Ex. 2 at 5; see also supra at 2. 

Because the procedural protections set forth in Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556, were

met in this case, and the discipline was supported by “some evidence,” see Hill, 472

U.S. at 454, there was no violation of petitioner’s right to due process. Accordingly,

petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on any of the claims presented in the instant

petition.

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED

on the merits. The clerk shall terminate any pending motions. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

November 21, 2007

Case 5:06-cv-03407-JW Document 10 Filed 11/28/07 Page 8 of 8