Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01582/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01582-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ANTHONY VELLA,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN CLARK,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-cv-01582 OWW SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 30, 2007. 

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petition is not entitled to relief." Rule 4

of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

1990).

In the instant petition, Petitioner is not challenging his underlying conviction; rather, he is

challenging the procedures regarding the issuance of a rules violation report and subsequent

hearing. Petitioner raises the following three challenges: (1) he was not provided a copy of a

medical report until 16 days after the rules violation report was classified as serious; (2) he was

Case 1:07-cv-01582-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 11/27/07 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

not provided a fair and unbiased senior hearing officer; and (3) the supplemental medical report

consisted of a typographical error of the wrong log number. The instant petition must be

dismissed as fails to state a cognizable federal claim.

Prisoners cannot be entirely deprived of their constitutional rights, but their rights may be

diminished by the needs and objectives of the institutional environment. Wolff v. McDonnell,

418 U.S. 539, 555 (1974). Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution,

so a prisoner is not afforded the full panoply of rights in such proceedings. Id. at 556. Thus, a

prisoner’s due process rights are moderated by the “legitimate institutional needs” of a prison. 

Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), citing Superintendent, etc. v. Hill, 472

U.S. 445, 454-455 (1984).

However, when a prison disciplinary proceeding may result in the loss of good time

credits, due process requires that the prisoner receive: (1) advance written notice of at least 24

hours of the disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety

and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and

(3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the

disciplinary action. Hill, 472 U.S. at 454; Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-567. In addition, due process

requires that the decision be supported by “some evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, citing United

States ex rel. Vatauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106 (1927). 

Here, Petitioner’s claims hinge on a violation of the Department of Corrections, tit. 15,

section 3320; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Department Operations

Manual (DOM) § 52080.9.1. Section 3320(a) states:

(a) A copy of the CDC Form 115 and all nonconfidential reports to be

relied upon in a disciplinary hearing shall normally be provided to an inmate

within 24 hours after the CDC Form 115 has been classified serious or

administrative and within 30 days of the misconduct, but not later than 15 days

from the date the information leading to the charges is discovered by staff or, in

the case of an escapee, 15 days the escapee’s return to the department’s custody. 

Petitioner contends that on December 20, 2004, officer Liles provided him a complete

copy of the CDC 115 and all supporting documentation. However, the medical report prepared

by Dr. Allen Yin was not included in the package. Petitioner contends that he was not provided

Case 1:07-cv-01582-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 11/27/07 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

with a copy of the medical report until January 5, 2005, which was 16 days after the rules

violation was classified as serious. The Constitution only requires that prisoners be afforded

those procedures mandated by Wolff at a prison disciplinary hearing; it does not require that

prison officials comply with their own more generous procedures or time limitations. See

Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d at 1419-1420; Rogers v. Okin, 738 F.2d 1, 8 (1 Cir. 1984). Under st

Wolff, there is simply no constitutional right to the receipt of all documentation, including

medical reports, within fifteen days after the rules violation report is classified. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s first claim is without merit as it does not rise to the constitutional violation. With

regard to Petitioner’s claim that he was deprived of a fair and unbiased senior hearing officer,

this claim is based on the fact that the officer relied on the medical report prepared by Dr. Yin,

which he claims was improper because it was untimely issued. Accordingly, because there is no

constitutional violation based on the alleged untimeliness, there is simply no basis to Petitioner’s

claim that he was denied a fair and unbiased hearing officer. With regard to Petitioner’s third

claim for relief, it simply fails to state a constitutional violation. As such, the instant petition for

writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable federal claim pursuant to

§ 2254. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a

cognizable federal claim; and

2. The Clerk of Court enter judgment, terminating this action.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 Recommendations.” 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

Case 1:07-cv-01582-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 11/27/07 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

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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01582-OWW -SMS Document 4 Filed 11/27/07 Page 4 of 4