Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00140/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00140-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California Jp 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES REYNOLDS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-0140 OWW JMD HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO CHANGE NAME OF RESPONDENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections pursuant to

a judgment of the Orange County Superior Court. (Answer at 2; Ex. 1.) He is serving a sentence of

eighteen years and four months following his conviction for attempted murder, mayhem, battery on a

peace officer, assault on a peace officer, and an enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury in the

commission of a felony. (Answer at 2; Ex. 1.) Petitioner does not challenge the validity of his

conviction, but instead challenges disciplinary action taken against him in 2004 at California State

Prison, Corcoran.

On July 16, 2004, an incident occurred resulting in Petitioner being charged with battery on a

peace officer. (Answer at 2.) On August 18, 2004, a hearing was conducted to adjudicate the charge

Case 1:06-cv-00140-OWW -JMD Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 Page 1 of 9
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California Jp 2

against Petitioner. Petitioner was found guilty. (Answer at 3-4.)

Petitioner filed an administrative appeal challenging the result of the hearing. The

administrative appeal was denied. Petitioner then filed for director’s level review, which was also

denied. (Answer at 4; Petition, Ex. A-1.) 

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Kings County Superior Court. The

court denied the petition in a reasoned opinion. (Answer at 4; Ex. 4.)

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal. The

court summarily denied the petition. (Answer at 4; Ex. 5.)

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. The

court summarily denied the petition. (Answer at 5; Ex. 6.)

On January 13, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition in this Court. The petition raises the

following three grounds for relief: 1) Petitioner’s right to staff assistance was violated when the

senior hearing officer did not allow the investigative employee assigned to Petitioner’s case to ask

certain questions to witnesses; 2) Petitioner was denied a fair and impartial disciplinary hearing

because the senior hearing officer had a predetermined belief in his guilt; and 3) Petitioner was

denied a fair and impartial disciplinary process because the senior hearing officer did not submit

Petitioner’s two-page statement to the chief disciplinary officer for final review and authorization.

On May 11, 2007, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On July 16, 2004, an incident occurred resulting in Petitioner being charged with battery on a

peace officer. (Answer at 2.) The Rules Violation Report prepared after the incident stated that

Correctional Officer Landry was collecting breakfast trays when Petitioner asked him if he had told

the sergeant Petitioner wished to speak with him. (Answer at 2; Ex. 2 at 1.) Petitioner began

shouting obscenities and insults after Landry told him that he would eventually have the opportunity

to speak to the sergeant. (Answer at 2; Ex. 2 at 1.) Petitioner initially calmed down when asked to

do so, but then began shouting again and kicking his cell door. (Answer at 2; Ex. 2 at 1, 21.) Landry

then asked for Petitioner’s cell to be opened and told Petitioner to sit on the lower bunk. (Answer at

2; Ex. 2 at 1, 7, 17.) Petitioner yelled, “Fuck that, I don’t need to sit on no bunk,” and he threw a

Case 1:06-cv-00140-OWW -JMD Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 Page 2 of 9
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California Jp 3

punch at Landry. (Answer at 2; Ex. 2 at 7, 17.) Landry then pushed Petitioner onto the lower bunk

and Petitioner began kicking him below the waist with both feet, causing Landry to slam up against

the lower lockers in the cell. (Answer at 2; Ex. 2 at 7, 17.) Correctional Officer Casby attempted to

spray Petitioner with pepper spray, but missed. (Answer at 2; Ex. 2 at 7, 17, 22.) Landry then

retrieved his own pepper spray and sprayed Petitioner, ending the assault. (Answer at 2; Ex. 2 at 7,

17, 22.)

Landry prepared the Rules Violation Report, which was reviewed by Sergeant Kehoe. 

(Answer at 3; Ex. 2 at 1.) On July 22, 2004, the Report was classified as serious and referred to the

senior hearing officer. (Answer at 3.)

Prior to the hearing, an investigative employee prepared a report of the incident. (Answer at

3; Ex. 2 at 1.) The investigative employee took Landry’s statement and interviewed five inmate

witnesses who stated that Petitioner only asked to speak with the sergeant and that he did not try to

hit Landry. (Answer at 3; Ex. 2 at 4-6.) Petitioner submitted to the investigative employee a list of

questions he wished to have asked to witnesses. The investigative employee submitted the questions

to the senior hearing officer. (Answer at 3; Ex. 2 at 4.) Petitioner also submitted a two-page

statement for consideration. (Answer at 3; Ex. 2 at 2-3.)

The senior hearing officer adjudicated the charge against Petitioner on August 18, 2004. 

(Answer at 3.)

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

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

to the 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. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,

375 n.7 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by the U.S.

Constitution. In addition, Petitioner is confined at California State Prison, Sacramento, which is

located within the jurisdiction of this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Accordingly,

the Court has jurisdiction over the action. 

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

Case 1:06-cv-00140-OWW -JMD Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 Page 3 of 9
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California Jp 4

1996 (“AEDPA”), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. 

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997),

quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1107 (1997),

overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997) (holding AEDPA only

applicable to cases filed after statute's enactment). The instant petition was filed after the enactment

of the AEDPA; thus, it is governed by its provisions.

II. Legal Standard of Review

This 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). 

The instant petition is reviewed under the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act which became effective on April 24, 1996. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70 (2003). 

Under the AEDPA, an application for habeas corpus will not be granted unless the adjudication of

the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,

clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or

“resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the

evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see Lockyer, 538 U.S. at

70-71; see Williams, 529 U.S. at 413.

As a threshold matter, this Court must "first decide what constitutes 'clearly established

Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.'" Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 71,

quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). In ascertaining what is "clearly established Federal law," this Court

must look to the "holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme Court's] decisions as of the time

of the relevant state-court decision." Id., quoting Williams, 592 U.S. at 412. "In other words,

'clearly established Federal law' under § 2254(d)(1) is the governing legal principle or principles set

forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision." Id.

Finally, this Court must consider whether the state court's decision was "contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law." Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 72,

quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). “Under the ‘contrary to’ clause, a federal habeas court may grant

Case 1:06-cv-00140-OWW -JMD Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 Page 4 of 9
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California Jp 5

the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a

question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than [the] Court has on a set of

materially indistinguishable facts.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 413; see also Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 72. 

“Under the ‘reasonable application clause,’ a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court

identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies

that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 413.

“[A] federal court may not issue the writ simply because the court concludes in its

independent judgment that the relevant state court decision applied clearly established federal law

erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.” Id. at 411. A

federal habeas court making the “unreasonable application” inquiry should ask whether the state

court’s application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.” Id. at 409. 

 Petitioner has the burden of establishing that the decision of the state court is contrary to or

involved an unreasonable application of United States Supreme Court precedent. Baylor v. Estelle,

94 F.3d 1321, 1325 (9th Cir. 1996). Although only Supreme Court law is binding on the states,

Ninth Circuit precedent remains relevant persuasive authority in determining whether a state court

decision is objectively unreasonable. See Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200 F.3d 597, 600-01 (9th Cir.

1999). 

AEDPA requires that we give considerable deference to state court decisions. The state

court's factual findings are presumed correct, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), and we are bound by a state's

interpretation of its own laws. Souch v. Schaivo, 289 F.3d 616, 621 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,

537 U.S. 859 (2002), rehearing denied, 537 U.S. 1149 (2003). 

III. Review of Petitioner’s Claims

A. Ground One

Petitioner argues that his right to staff assistance was violated when the senior hearing officer

did not allow the investigative employee to ask certain questions to witnesses as requested by

Petitioner.

This claim was presented in a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Kings County Superior

Court, which denied the petition in a reasoned opinion. (Answer, Ex. 4.) The issue was then raised

Case 1:06-cv-00140-OWW -JMD Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 Page 5 of 9
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California Jp 6

in petitions for writ of habeas corpus to the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme

Court, which summarily denied the petitions. (Answer, Exs. 5-6.) 

In rejecting Petitioner’s claim, the Superior Court found that the hearing examiner properly

exercised discretion in disallowing the questions requested by Petitioner. The court explained that

the disputed questions were irrelevant, cumulative, argumentative, or called for inadmissible opinion

testimony. (Answer, Ex. 4 at 1.)

An inmate facing disciplinary proceedings has a limited right to call witnesses and present

documentary evidence in his defense. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). Prison

officials retain the discretion, however, to disallow the calling of witnesses and to limit the collection

of documentary evidence for reasons such as irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards presented

in individual cases. Id. An inmate also has the right to obtain aid in the presentation of his case

where he is illiterate or where the complexity of the issues involved makes it unlikely that he will be

able to collect and present the necessary evidence. Id. at 570.

Here, Petitioner sought to have the investigative employee ask Officer Landry and other

officers about the procedure Landry employed during the incident, the contents of Landry’s report,

and the damage to and functionality of various pepper spray cans. (Petition, Ex. E at 1-3.) Petitioner

also sought to question various inmates about their recollection of the incident. (Id. at 4-8.)

The state court’s determination that Petitioner’s rights were not violated when the hearing

officer disallowed his questions was not unreasonable, as the record shows that the information

sought was cumulative and irrelevant. The information sought from Officer Landry regarding the

actions he took during the incident and the contents of his report was already provided in his written

reports of the incident. (See Answer, Ex. 2 at 7, 16-21.) The information sought regarding the

damage to and functionality of the officers’ pepper spray cans was not relevant to the issue of

whether Petitioner committed a battery on Officer Landry. Further, the five inmates Petitioner

sought to have questioned had already been interviewed by the investigative employee, with each

stating that Officer Landry initiated the incident without provocation after Petitioner asked to speak

with the sergeant. (Answer, Ex. 2 at 5-6.) The hearing officer considered the inmates’ testimony,

but found it to be unconvincing in comparison to statements by staff who also witnessed the incident. 

Case 1:06-cv-00140-OWW -JMD Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 Page 6 of 9
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California Jp 7

(Id. at 2.) Petitioner has not shown that any further questioning of the inmates would have provided

additional relevant information. 

B. Ground Two

Petitioner argues that he was denied a fair and impartial disciplinary hearing because the

senior hearing officer had a predetermined belief in his guilt. Petitioner claims that the hearing

officer’s bias against him was demonstrated when the officer did not allow the investigative

employee to ask certain questions to witnesses as requested by Petitioner.

This claim was presented in a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Kings County Superior

Court, which denied the petition in a reasoned opinion. (Answer, Ex. 4.) The issue was then raised

in petitions for writ of habeas corpus to the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme

Court, which summarily denied the petitions. (Answer, Exs. 5-6.) 

In rejecting Petitioner’s claim, the Superior Court found that there was no evidence that the

hearing officer was biased against Petitioner. (Answer, Ex. 4 at 1.)

To satisfy the Due Process Clause, the decision maker at a prison disciplinary hearing must

be impartial and must reach a decision on a non-arbitrary basis. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,

570-71 (1974).

The state court’s determination that Petitioner failed to show the hearing officer was biased

against him was not unreasonable. The only evidence presented by Petitioner in support of his claim

is the fact that the hearing officer did not allow certain questions to be asked of witnesses. As

discussed above, however, the hearing officer’s refusal to permit the questions only shows that he

was attempting to exclude improper questions, not that he was biased against Petitioner.

C. Ground Three

Petitioner argues that he was denied a fair and impartial disciplinary process because the

senior hearing officer did not submit Petitioner’s two-page statement to the chief disciplinary officer

for final review and authorization. 

This claim was presented in a petition for writ of habeas corpus to the Kings County Superior

Court, which denied the petition in a reasoned opinion. (Answer, Ex. 4.) The issue was then raised

in petitions for writ of habeas corpus to the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme

Case 1:06-cv-00140-OWW -JMD Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 Page 7 of 9
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California Jp 8

Court, which summarily denied the petitions. (Answer, Exs. 5-6.) 

The Superior Court, in rejecting Petitioner’s claim, did not directly address his argument that

the two-page statement was not submitted to the chief disciplinary officer.

Respondent contends, however, that the senior hearing officer did attach the two-page

statement to the original Rules Violation Report that was placed in Petitioner’s central file and

reviewed by the chief disciplinary officer. (Answer at 5.) Respondent has submitted a copy of the

Report showing that the two-page statement was provided to the chief disciplinary officer for review. 

(Answer, Ex. 2 at 35-36.) Petitioner’s claim is therefore denied.

D. Proper Respondent

Petitioner states that he is currently incarcerated at California State Prison, Sacramento. 

(Petition at 1.) Respondent states that the warden of that institution is James Walker. (Answer at 1

n.1.) Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Clerk will be directed to

substitute James Walker as Respondent in this matter.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment for

Respondent. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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).

Case 1:06-cv-00140-OWW -JMD Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 Page 8 of 9
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California Jp 9

ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to substitute James

Walker as Respondent in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2008 /s/ John M. Dixon 

9f4gk8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00140-OWW -JMD Document 14 Filed 08/21/08 Page 9 of 9