Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02510/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02510-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 In his traverse, petitioner raises several new constitutional claims, invoking

the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, these new claims were not

exhausted in the previous state petition, and are therefore not properly before this

Court. See 28 U.S. C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). 

Therefore, the Court will not consider these claims. 

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman02510_denyHC.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES NEWMAN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-02510 JW (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Folsom State Prison in

Represa, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a prison disciplinary hearing at Corcoran State Prison

(“CSP”) that resulted in the forfeiture of good time credits. Finding the petition

stated a cognizable claim under § 2254, the Court ordered respondent to show cause

why the petition should not be granted. Respondent filed an answer, and petitioner

filed a traverse.1

 

Case 5:06-cv-02510-JW Document 15 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman02510_denyHC.wpd 2

BACKGROUND

On January 24, 2005, while Correctional Officer S. Leishman was collecting

food trays after breakfast, petitioner refused to return his tray and that of his cellmate through the food port in their cell. (Pet. 3.) According to the petition,

petitioner told Officer Leishman to “open the door and get [the trays] your self

[sic].” Id. Petitioner claimed that his knee was swollen, and that he would not

return the tray until he received medical attention. Id. Petitioner withheld the tray

for approximately one hour until he was taken to the clinic. Id. Petitioner’s action

delayed all programs in his section for one hour. (Pet. Ex. A.) On January 29, 2005,

petitioner was issued a CDC Form 115 Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) charging

him with willfully resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer in the

performance of his duty in violation of 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3005(b). Id. 

Prior to the hearing held on February 27, 2005, petitioner was provided with

notice of the hearing and the charges against him. (Pet. Ex. C at 1.) At the hearing,

petitioner pled not guilty, but based on the evidence presented, including the RVR

and petitioner’s own testimony, petitioner was found guilty of the charged offense

and assessed a ninety day forfeiture of good time credits. Id. No investigative

employee was assigned to petitioner’s case, and no staff assistant was assigned to

petitioner at the hearing. Id. Petitioner waived all witnesses other than Officer

Leishman at the hearing. Id.

Petitioner administratively exhausted his remedies through the prison appeals

process. Petitioner’s state habeas petition was denied by the California Supreme

Court on March 15, 2006. (Pet. Ex. K.) Petitioner filed the instant federal petition

on April 11, 2006.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf

Case 5:06-cv-02510-JW Document 15 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman02510_denyHC.wpd 3

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. Jodges, 423U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A claim

which, if successful, would result in the restoration of time credits is properly

brought in habeas because success on such claims could result in the inmate’s earlier

release from prison. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner claims the following constitute due process violations at his

disciplinary hearing as grounds for federal habeas relief: 1) he was denied the right

to have witnesses appear in his defense; 2) he was denied his right to present

evidence in his defense at the hearing; 3) he was not assigned an investigating

employee (“IE”) to gather information regarding his knee injury and other evidence;

4) petitioner’s statements at the hearing were falsely documented and his questions

to Officer Leishman were inaccurately noted; and 5) the RVR was issued in

retaliation for petitioner seeking medical care for his knee. (Pet. 7.) Of these five

claims, claims 1, 2, and 3 allege violations of procedural due process mandated by

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).

1– 3. Due Process

Due process requires five procedural protections in connection with

prison discipline that results in the forfeiture of time credits. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556.

First, “written notice of the charges must be given to the disciplinary-action

defendant in order to inform him of the charges and to enable him to marshal the

facts and prepare a defense.” Id. at 564. Second, “at least a brief period of time

after the notice, no less than 24 hours, should be allowed to the inmate to prepare for

the appearance before the [disciplinary committee].” Id. Third, “there must be a

‘written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons’ for the

disciplinary action.” Id. (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)). 

Fourth, “the inmate facing disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to call

Case 5:06-cv-02510-JW Document 15 Filed 11/28/07 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman02510_denyHC.wpd 4

witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to

do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.” Id.

at 566. Fifth, “[w]here an illiterate inmate is involved . . . or where the complexity

of the issues makes it unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the

evidence necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case, he should be free to

seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or . . . to have adequate substitute aid . . . from the

staff or from a[n] . . . inmate designated by the staff.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570. 

The record reveals, and petitioner does not dispute, that he received written

notice of the charges well over 24 hours prior to the hearing and that there was a

written statement as to the findings and reasoning of the disciplinary decision. (Pet.

Ex. C at 1.) Furthermore, the record shows that although petitioner had requested

witnesses prior to the hearing, he waived all witnesses, including his cell-mate, and

only requested Officer Leishman as a witness at the hearing. Id.; see also Pet. Ex. A

at 2. Petitioner was permitted, but chose not to, call other witnesses and present

documentary evidence. Id. In his own defense, petitioner was permitted to question

Officer Leishman at the hearing as well as give his own testimony. Id. A staff

assistant was not assigned because petitioner spoke English, was literate, and

petitioner confirmed that staff assistance was not necessary. Id. There is no

evidence to support either petitioner’s first claim that he was denied his right to

present witnesses or his second claim that he was denied his right to present

evidence in his defense. 

Petitioner’s third claim is that he was denied his right to an IE to investigate

the matter of his injured knee and gather other evidence. Petitioner claims that an IE

should have been appointed because he was placed in administrative segregation

pending the RVR hearing, and California regulations require that an IE be appointed

under such circumstances. However, to the extent there may be any additional

procedures provided under state law, the Due Process Clause only requires that

prisoners be afforded those procedures mandated by Wolff and its progeny; it does

Case 5:06-cv-02510-JW Document 15 Filed 11/28/07 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman02510_denyHC.wpd 5

not require that prisons comply with its own, more generous procedures. See

Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1419-20 (9th Cir. 1994). Wolff states that

whether an IE should be appointed depends on whether “an illiterate inmate is

involved... or whether the complexity of the issue makes it unlikely that the inmate

will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate

comprehension of the case.” 418 U.S. at 570. The record shows that petitioner is

not illiterate, and that an IE was not assigned because the issues were not complex

and the available information was sufficient. (Pet. Ex. C at 1.) Petitioner also failed

to provide a reason for why he required an IE. Id.

Petitioner’s claim that an IE could have helped him collect information about

his knee injury is without merit. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how he was

unable to collect this information on his own or that the information regarding his

knee injury was relevant to the disciplinary proceedings. As stated in the findings of

the hearing: “The issue for the disciplinary hearing is whether or not [petitioner]

disobeyed orders and deliberately obstructed staff from their duties. Contrary to this

inmate’s belief, inmates are not allowed to disobey orders and obstruct a peace

officer from the performance of a duty because they have unresolved complaints and

they prefer immediate action.” (Pet. Ex. C at 2.) Because petitioner’s knee injury

was not relevant to the disciplinary proceedings, it cannot be said that he was denied

due process by not having an IE appointed to assist him in investigating the matter. 

Petitioner also claims that an IE would have been able to assist in collecting

information showing that his cell-mate was the one who refused to return the food

tray. However, this claim is contradicted by petitioner’s own admission in his

petition that he was the one who refused a direct order from Officer Leishman. See

supra at 2. Furthermore, petitioner waived his right to explicitly call his cell-mate as

a witness at the hearing. See Pet. Ex. A at 2. Consequently, petitioner was afforded

all the procedural due process mandated by Wolff. See 418 U.S. at 570. 

///

Case 5:06-cv-02510-JW Document 15 Filed 11/28/07 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman02510_denyHC.wpd 6

4. False and Inaccurate Documentation 

The revocation of good-time credits does not comport with the

minimum requirements of procedural due process in Wolff unless the findings of the

prison disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the record. 

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). The standard for the modicum of

evidence required is met if there was some evidence from which the conclusion of

the administrative tribunal could be deduced. See id. at 455. An examination of the

entire record is not required nor is an independent assessment of the credibility of

witnesses or weighing of the evidence. See id. The relevant question is whether

there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the

disciplinary board. See id. The Ninth Circuit additionally has held that there must

be some indicia of reliability of the information that forms the basis for prison

disciplinary actions. See Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 704-05 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Here, the evidence of guilt consisted of a detailed statement by the reporting

officer who issued the RVR and petitioner’s own testimony at the hearing. (Pet. Ex.

C at 2.) The officer testified that petitioner refused to give back the food tray until

he got medical attention for his swollen knee and that he held onto the tray for

approximately one hour, which delayed all programs in petitioner’s section during

that time. (Pet. Ex. A.) Furthermore, petitioner’s testimony at the hearing was

unconvincing, and is quoted here in its entirety: “I have still been denied medical

care for my knee. To this day, I have only seen the doctor one time. I did not hold

the tray for no hour either [sic].” (Pet. Ex. C at 1.) It is apparent to the hearing

officer that petitioner was obstructing the officer from performing his duties in order

to gain immediate medical attention. Accordingly, there was sufficiently reliable

evidence to find petitioner guilty of the charged offense to satisfy the requirements

of due process. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 454. 

Petitioner’s fourth claim that his statements were falsely documented and that

the questions he posed to Officer Leishman were inaccurately noted is of no

Case 5:06-cv-02510-JW Document 15 Filed 11/28/07 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman02510_denyHC.wpd 7

consequence. With respect to the first allegation, petitioner does not state what

specifically was false about his documented testimony or recounts what he actually

testified. Moreover, petitioner’s documented testimony is consistent with the fact

that petitioner was dissatisfied with the lack of medical attention to his swollen knee. 

Petitioner also admits in his petition that his tray was not turned in until

approximately an hour later. (Pet. 3.) With respect to the second allegation,

petitioner alleges that he asked certain questions of Officer Leishman at the hearing

which were not included in the record of the hearing but which he is able to recounts

in detail in his petition. (Pet. 5-6.) However, petitioner’s line of questioning,

beginning with the inquiry, “[w]hen you came to the cell the second time...,” had to

do with the officer’s actions after petitioner’s initial refusal to hand over the food

tray. Id. Such questions have no bearing on the issue of whether petitioner refused

Officer Leishman’s first direct order to hand over the food trays and which thereafter

lead to the delay in the programs in petitioner’s section. 

Because the procedural protections set forth in Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556, were

met in this case, and the discipline was supported by “some evidence,” see Hill, 472

U.S. at 454, there was no violation of petitioner’s right to due process. Accordingly,

petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on claims 1, 2, 3 and 4.

5. Retaliation

Petitioner’s fifth claim that the RVR was issued in retaliation for

seeking medical care for his injured knee does not amount to a violation of due

process. A prisoner’s right to due process is violated “only is he [is] not provided

with process sufficient to meet the Wolff standard.” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1420. Here,

petitioner was afforded all the procedural protections mandated by Wolff. See supra

at 5. Even assuming that petitioner’s allegation of retaliatory motivation on the part

of prison officials were true, there is some evidence on the record to support the

guilty finding regardless of the alleged motivations behind the RVR. See Hill, 472

U.S. at 454. 

Case 5:06-cv-02510-JW Document 15 Filed 11/28/07 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman02510_denyHC.wpd 8

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

DENIED. The clerk shall terminate any pending motions. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

November 16, 2007

Case 5:06-cv-02510-JW Document 15 Filed 11/28/07 Page 8 of 8