Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05956/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05956-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT W. PORTER, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

DORRAL G. ADAMS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 04-5956 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 11]

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On September 12, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations

herein. These findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice

to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within

thirty days. Petitioner filed objections on September 29, 2006. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has

Case 1:04-cv-05956-AWI-WMW Document 13 Filed 01/03/07 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

conducted a de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708

F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the th

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis with the

following addition.

Concerning Petitioner’s claim that the hearing officer improperly relied on

confidential sources, a disciplinary decision based on the statement of an unidentified inmate

informant satisfies due process if “(1) the record contains some factual information from

which the committee can reasonably conclude that the information was reliable, and (2) the

record contains a prison official's affirmative statement that safety considerations prevent the

disclosure of the informant's name.” Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir.1987)

(per curiam). The disciplinary hearing officer conducted an independent review of the

confidential material and found it reliable. There was an affirmative statement that the

confidential informants’ information was corroborated. In addition, the hearing officer

found that the names of the informants needed to be withheld for safety reasons. Thus,

applying the Ninth Circuit’s standard, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the use

of the confidential information did not violate Petitioner’s due process rights. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

September 12, 2006, are a adopted in full;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05956-AWI-WMW Document 13 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2