Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00278/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00278-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED MYLES,

Petitioner,

v.

R. J. RACKLEY,

Respondent.

No. 2:16-cv-0278 TLN CKD P

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Before the court is respondent’s motion to dismiss 

Claims 1-4 of the petition for failure to state a federal claim. Alternatively, respondent argues 

that certain claims should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a separate petition. (ECF 

No. 14.) Petitioner has not filed an opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned 

will recommend that respondent’s motion be granted. 

I. Background

Petitioner was convicted of possession of marijuana in Folsom State Prison and sentenced 

to a prison term of two years. (Lod. Doc. 1.) Petitioner did not appeal the judgment. In a prison 

disciplinary hearing based on the same incident, petitioner was found guilty of distribution of a 

controlled substance within an institution, for which he lost custody credits. (ECF No. 1 at 29, 

35.)

Case 2:16-cv-00278-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 10/27/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the state superior court, challenging both his prison 

disciplinary conviction for distribution and his criminal conviction for possession. (Lod. Doc. 2.) 

He argued that, under Proposition 47, he was entitled to a sentence reduction from two years to 

one year or six months.1 (Id.) The court denied the petition, finding that petitioner needed to 

seek Proposition 47 relief from his criminal conviction in a separate petition under Cal. Penal 

Code § 1170.18, not in a habeas proceeding. The court also found that petitioner was not entitled 

to relief from the prison disciplinary action, noting: “Proposition 47 applies only to criminal 

convictions in a court of law, not to guilt findings in prison disciplinary proceedings.” (Lod. Doc. 

3.) Petitioner then filed a habeas petition in the state court of appeal, which the court denied. 

(Lod. Docs. 4 & 5.) 

Petitioner next petitioned the state superior court to redesignate his sentence under 

Proposition 47. (Lod. Doc. 6.) The court denied the petition, finding that petitioner was 

ineligible for resentencing based on his current conviction. (Lod. Doc. 7.) 

Petitioner filed another habeas petition in the state superior court, challenging both his 

prison disciplinary conviction and his court judgment. (Lod. Doc. 8.) The court found the claims 

procedurally barred. (Lod. Doc. 9.)

Petitioner then filed a habeas petition in the state supreme court challenging both the 

prison disciplinary and criminal convictions. (Lod. Doc. 10.) The court summarily denied the 

petition. (Lod. Doc. 11.) 

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on February 11, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) 

II. Discussion

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for 

summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and 

any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” The 

court considers whether summary dismissal of Claims 1-4 is appropriate, as set forth below.

 

1

Passed by California voters in 2014, Proposition 47 reduces certain drug possession felonies to 

misdemeanors and allows people who are already serving felony convictions for these crimes to 

petition the court for resentencing. 

Case 2:16-cv-00278-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 10/27/16 Page 2 of 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

3

A. Disciplinary Claims: 1 & 4

Claim 1 of the petition challenges petitioner’s prison disciplinary conviction for 

distribution of a controlled substance, resulting in a loss of custody credits. Petitioner argues that 

he was incorrectly found guilty of violating Cal. Code Regs., title 15, § 3016(c), distribution of a 

controlled substance, rather than possession of a controlled substance. (ECF No. 1 at 25-29.) 

Likewise in Claim 4, petitioner asserts that he was found guilty of the wrong regulatory violation 

and received an excessive sentence. (Id. at 34-38.)

An inmate’s rights arising under federal law concerning disciplinary proceedings which 

result in the loss of good conduct sentence credit are, generally speaking, limited to the following: 

1) Advance written notice of the charges; 

2) An opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call 

witnesses and present documentary evidence in his or her defense; 

3) A written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the 

disciplinary action; and 

4) That the findings of the prison disciplinary board be supported by some evidence in the 

record. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). 

Here, insofar as petitioner argues that his disciplinary conviction for distribution is not 

supported by “some evidence,” his claim is cognizable in federal habeas. However, he cannot 

challenge both the disciplinary finding and his criminal conviction in the same action. See Rule 

2(e) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus. Thus Claims 1 and 4 (which are effectively one 

claim) should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a separate action. 

B. State Law Claims: 2 & 3

In Claims 2 and 3, petitioner challenges the state court’s refusal to resentence him under 

Cal. Penal Code § 1170.18, enacted by Proposition 47. In Claim 3, petitioner characterizes this as 

a federal due process claim. (ECF No. 1 at 30-34.) 

Federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable for alleged errors in the interpretation or 

application of state sentencing laws by a state court. See Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50 

(1992) (the question to be decided by a federal court on petition for habeas corpus is not whether 

Case 2:16-cv-00278-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 10/27/16 Page 3 of 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

4

the state committed state-law error but whether the state court’s action was “so arbitrary or 

capricious” as to constitute an independent violation of the federal constitution); Brown v. Mayle, 

283 F.3d 1019, 1040 (9th Cir. 2002) (petitioner’s claim that he should be resentenced under state 

law was not cognizable on federal habeas review), vacated on other grounds by Mayle v. Brown, 

538 U.S. 901 (2003). Citing federal due process in a claim for resentencing under state law does 

not make the claim reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thus Claims 2 and 3 should be 

dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 

In sum, the undersigned will recommend that four of petitioner’s five claims be dismissed 

and this action proceed on the remaining claim, Claim 5. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) be granted; 

2. Claims 1 and 4 be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a separate action;

3. Claims 2 and 3 be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and

4. This action be referred back to the Magistrate Judge to proceed on Claim 5.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: October 26, 2016

2 / myle0278.mtd

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00278-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 10/27/16 Page 4 of 4