Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04508/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04508-0/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BENJAMIN MARTINEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

W. L. MUNIZ, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-04508-MEJ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND; DENYING REQUEST FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

Re: Dkt. No. 2 

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison and proceeding pro 

se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docket No. 1. He has 

paid the filing fee. Docket No. 5. 

BACKGROUND 

On November 19, 2014, Petitioner was issued a Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) charging 

him with possession of a cellular phone. Docket No. 1 at 19. A disciplinary hearing was held 

regarding this RVR, and Petitioner was found guilty and assessed 90 days loss of credit. Id. at 19‒

20. Petitioner alleges due process violations with respect to this disciplinary proceeding. 

Specifically, Plaintiff claims that the guilty finding violated his right to due process because he 

was not allowed to present evidence in his defense, and because Senior Hearing Officer J. A. 

Baker used and considered evidence that was both illegally obtained and improperly omitted from 

his RVR Report. Docket No. 1 at 5. 

DISCUSSION 

“Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a 

petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 

Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or 

Case 3:16-cv-04508-MEJ Document 8 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.” Hill v. McDonough, 547 

U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 

The Supreme Court has consistently held that any claim by a prisoner attacking the fact or 

duration of his confinement must be brought under the habeas sections of Title 28 of the United 

States Code. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 

641, 648 (1997); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). A constitutional claim 

concerning the application of rules administered by a prison administrator that challenges the 

duration of a sentence is a cognizable claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See, e.g., 

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) (determining a procedural due process claim 

concerning loss of time credits resulting from disciplinary procedures and findings). Similarly, a 

challenge to a disciplinary finding that resulted in assessment of time credits must be brought in 

habeas if reinstatement of the time credits would “necessarily spell speedier release.” See Skinner 

v. Switzer, 561 U.S. 521, 525 (2011). However, a prisoner’s claim falls outside the “core of 

habeas corpus” if a successful claim will not necessarily lead to immediate or speedier release 

from custody. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016). If a prisoner’s claim 

falls outside the core of habeas corpus, such a claim must be pursued, if at all, in a civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 931. Accordingly, habeas is not the proper remedy to 

challenge a disciplinary finding where reversal of the finding would not necessarily lead to a 

speedier release. Id.; see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 852, 858 (9th Cir. 2003) (habeas 

jurisdiction is lacking where successful challenge to disciplinary hearing or administrative 

sanction will not necessarily shorten the overall length of confinement). 

In the instant petition, it is unclear whether the relief sought by Petitioner — expungement 

of the guilty finding and a restoration of the 90 days of lost behavior credits — would necessarily 

shorten the overall length of Petitioner’s confinement.1

 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES 

 

1

 In this motion requesting appointment of counsel (Docket No. 2), Petitioner alleges that if his 

habeas petition is successful, it will remove “150 days plus from [his] Earliest Possible Release 

Date . . .” Docket No. 2 at 2. Petitioner should include all allegations supporting his claims for 

habeas relief in his amended petition. The Court will not construe claims by linking together 

allegations set forth in different pleadings. 

Case 3:16-cv-04508-MEJ Document 8 Filed 12/13/16 Page 2 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Petitioner’s petition with leave to amend to address this deficiency, if he can truthfully do so.2 If 

success on Petitioner’s claim would not necessarily shorten the overall length of Petitioner’s 

confinement, Petitioner may, if appropriate, pursue this claim in a civil rights action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

Petitioner has filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel. Docket No. 2. Petitioner 

argues that he is entitled to counsel for the following reasons: Clark v. California guarantees him 

legal counsel; the issues are complex; he has little formal education; he suffers from high anxiety; 

he lacks the ability to focus, research, or comprehend research; and he takes psychotropic 

medications which cloud his mental capacity. Id. at 2. The Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel 

does not apply in habeas corpus actions. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 

1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to 

represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so 

require” and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. 18 U.S.C. § 

3006A(a)(2)(B). The Court concludes that appointment of counsel is not necessary at this time. 

The Court has dismissed the petition with leave to amend and it is unclear if Petitioner will choose 

to file an amended petition. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is therefore DENIED 

without prejudice to the Court’s sua sponte appointment of counsel at a future date should the 

circumstances of this case warrant such appointment. Docket No. 2. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 2) is 

DENIED and the petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Petitioner shall file an amended 

petition within thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed. The amended petition must 

 

2

 The Court notes that Petitioner alleges that he was denied his due process rights in violation of 

state regulations, the state Constitution, and state caselaw. Docket No. 1 at 15. Petitioner should 

note that the 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. 

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

Case 3:16-cv-04508-MEJ Document 8 Filed 12/13/16 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

Northern District of California 

include the caption and civil case number used in this order (16–04508 MEJ (PR)) and the words 

AMENDED PETITION on the first page. Because an amended petition completely replaces the 

previous petitions, Petitioner must include in his amended petition all the claims he wishes to 

present. Petitioner may not incorporate material from the prior petition by reference. Failure to 

file an amended petition in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action for 

failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank habeas petition form along 

with a copy of this order. 

This order terminates Docket No. 2. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

______________________________________ 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES 

United States Magistrate Judge 

December 13, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-04508-MEJ Document 8 Filed 12/13/16 Page 4 of 4