Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01052/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01052-1/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

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

DEXTER S.C. FARLOUGH,

Petitioner,

v.

NICHOLAS DAWSON,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-01052 AWI SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 23, 2007. 

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody

pursuant to a judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375

(2000). As stated, Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by the

U.S Constitution. If a constitutional violation has resulted in the loss of time credits, such

violation affects the duration of a sentence, and the violation may be remedied by way of a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9 Cir. 1990). th

In his petition, Petitioner does not challenge the validity of his conviction; rather, he

challenges a disciplinary hearing resulting in a rules violation. Specifically, Petitioner contends

that he was denied his right to have witnesses present at the hearing, and he was not appointed a

Case 1:07-cv-01052-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 08/17/07 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

staff assistant in violation of his due process rights. (Petition, at 1-2.) Petitioner was found

guilty of refusal to report, and was assessed 40 hours of extra duty. (Rules Violation Report,

unenumerated exhibits attached to Petition.) The assessment of 40 hours of extra work duty has

no effect on the length of his incarceration. Accordingly, Petitioner’s challenges do not rise to

the level of a constitutional violation. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment and terminate the action. 

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 Recommendation.” 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: August 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01052-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 08/17/07 Page 2 of 2