Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02447/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02447-2/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

16cv2447 CAB (NLS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Armando Munoz,

Petitioner,

v.

Raymond Madden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2447 CAB (NLS)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION FOR ORDER 

DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF HABEAS CORPUS [Dkt. No. 1]

Petitioner Armando Munoz, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 

petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his due process rights were violated when 

hearing officers failed to consider his defense when determining a prison rule violation 

(Petition). Respondent previously filed a motion to dismiss the Petition for failure to 

state a claim, which the district court ultimately denied. Respondent filed an answer and 

argues that the Petition does not show that the state court decisions that upheld the 

disciplinary findings were contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly 

established federal law, or that they relied on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 

Munoz filed a traverse. 

For the following reasons, the court RECOMMENDS that the district court 

DENY the Petition.

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02447-CAB-NLS Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

16cv2447 CAB (NLS)

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

Relevant Background.1

Munoz is currently service a determinate prison sentence of 13 years and four 

months. Lodgment 1.

On March 15, 2015 correctional officers conducted a cell search in the cell that 

Munoz shared with fellow inmate Manuel Otero. Pet’n, p.6. Officers found a box of 

“Wortz Cheese Crackers” located on a shelf where Munoz admitted he kept his 

belongings. Id. Concealed inside the box was an inmate-manufactured syringe. Id. 

Otero immediately admitted the contraband belonged to him and told the officers that 

Munoz had no knowledge of it. Id.; Otero Decl. (Pet’n, Ex. C). Both Otero and Munoz 

were charged with possession of dangerous contraband and were drug tested. Pet’n, p.6. 

Test results showed that Otero had drugs in his system while Munoz did not. Id. 

During the administrative hearing Munoz called Otero as a witness, who testified 

that the contraband belonged to him and that Munoz did not know anything about it. 

Pet’n, p.7. The Senior Hearing Officer (SHO) found Munoz guilty of the rule violation 

based on the theories of constructive possession and implied consent. Id. As 

punishment, Munoz lost 120 days of good time conduct credits, all his entertainment 

appliances, and lost privileges for 180 days. Pet’n, p.1.

Munoz filed a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court, which that court 

denied on May 11, 2016. Pet’n, Ex. B. He filed this Petition on September 28, 2016. In 

the Petition he argues that the SHO misapplied California law when determining implied 

consent and constructive possession under Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, 

section 3000.

Legal Standard.

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) of 1996 governs 

this Petition. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). Under AEDPA, a federal court 

 

1 Most of the facts are taken as written in this court’s Report and Recommendation of 

March 2, 2017.

Case 3:16-cv-02447-CAB-NLS Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

16cv2447 CAB (NLS)

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

will not grant a habeas petition with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits in 

state court, unless that adjudication was (1) contrary to or involved an unreasonable 

application of clearly established federal law; or (2) based on an unreasonable 

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); 

Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-71 (2003).

To determine whether a state court “unreasonably applied” Supreme Court law or 

“unreasonably determined” the facts, this court reviews the last reasoned state court 

decision on the merits. Robinson v. Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Here, the California court of appeal court gave a reasoned opinion as to Munoz’s due 

process claim. Lodgment 7.

Discussion.

1. Misapplication of State Law.

In the Petition Munoz argues that the disciplinary violation was improper because 

the prison officials allegedly “misapplied the criteria for ‘constructive possession’ under 

California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3000 [Doc. No. 1 at 8], and whether they 

mistakenly concluded that he was responsible for his cellmate’s property, in violation of 

California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3022 [Doc. No. 1 at 9-10].” May 5, 

2017 Order, p.2. Respondent argues that the purported state law violation claims are 

improper in a federal habeas petition. Mem. Ps&As, pp.8-10.

The district judge already examined this claim for misapplication of the 

“constructive possession” regulation when reviewing Respondent’s previously-filed

motion to dismiss. While the district judge ultimately denied the motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim, she found that “to the extent the Petition claims a violation of 

state law [regarding “constructive possession”], there is no federal claim. Estelle v. 

McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991).” May 5, 2017 Order, p.2. 

Nothing in the Petition or the traverse inspire this court to offer a different 

recommendation as to Munoz’s claim based on misapplication of the “constructive 

possession” regulation.

Case 3:16-cv-02447-CAB-NLS Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

16cv2447 CAB (NLS)

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. Due Process Claim.

At the heart of the Petition is Munoz’s claim that he suffered a due process 

violation because no evidence supports the guilty finding that he possessed a contraband 

syringe. He specifically argues that the SHO overlooked the “knowledge” requirement 

and that no evidence shows that Munoz had any knowledge of the contraband. Traverse, 

pp.4-5, 12.

In a prison disciplinary hearing where an inmate may lose good time credits, due 

process requires that the inmate receive:

(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary charges (at least 

24 hours before the hearing); 

(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. 

Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985) 

(citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-567 (1974)). These elements, along with a

showing that “some evidence” in the record supports the finding, comports with the 

requirements of due process. Id. “Some evidence” means “any evidence... that could 

support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board[.]” Id. at 454-455. Such 

evidence need not be direct, and it could include even “meager” evidence. Id. at 457. 

“[T]he relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that can support 

the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Id. at 455-456.

Munoz does not claim that he did not receive the process required for a prison 

disciplinary hearing. Instead he argues that no evidence supports the guilty finding 

because there is no evidence that Munoz had knowledge of the contraband. On review, 

the state court disagreed with Munoz:

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02447-CAB-NLS Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

16cv2447 CAB (NLS)

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

The report of the correctional officer that the syringe was found 

in an area of the prison cell Munoz used to store his belongings 

constitutes “some evidence” he committed the disciplinary 

violation. Munoz’s “reliance on the evidence that supports his 

assertion not to have known about the [syringe], such as his 

cellmate’s acknowledgment of ownership and [Munoz’s] own 

claim of innocence, does not change the analysis under Hill. 

Hill emphasizes that the reviewing court is not to engage in an

‘examination of the entire record’ or ‘weighing of the 

conflicting evidence.’ [Citation.] Rather the narrow role 

assigned to the reviewing court is solely to determine whether 

there is ‘any evidence in the record that could support the 

conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.’ [Citation.] Here, 

there is such evidence, even if, as [Munoz] contends, there is 

other evidence that supports his assertion of innocence.” (In re 

Zepeda (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1493, 1500.) 

Lodgment 7, p.2.

As the state court notes, the record demonstrates that the hearing officer based his 

decision on some evidence. Specifically, the hearing officer relied on the officer’s report 

that documented how and where he found the syringe, and that it was found in an area 

accessible by both Munoz and his cellmate. Lodgment 2 (RVR); Lodgment 3 (Decision 

by SHO). Even if Munoz had no actual knowledge of the contraband the analysis does 

not change because there is still some evidence to support the guilty finding:

[T]hat [Otero] took responsibility for the contraband does not 

absolve [Munoz] of potential liability, as both may have had 

knowledge of its location. See In re Zepeda, 141 Cal. App. 4th 

1493, 1500 ... (2006) ("Zepeda's reliance on ... his cellmate's 

acknowledgement of ownership and Zepeda's own claim of 

innocence, does not change the analysis under Hill."). ... 

[C]ourts have noted that alternate explanations for contraband 

does not mandate reversal of the findings of a disciplinary 

board. See Dickerson v. Foulk, No. 2:14CV0731, 2014 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 162831, 2014 WL 6612094, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 

20, 2014) ("Under the 'some evidence' standard, that this is not 

the only possible conclusion does not give Petitioner a basis for 

relief."). The Court in Dickerson also acknowledged that access 

Case 3:16-cv-02447-CAB-NLS Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

16cv2447 CAB (NLS)

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

to the place where the contraband was located was "sufficient to 

uphold the hearing officer's finding of culpability for 

possession." 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162831, [WL] at *3.

Lucas v. Janda, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105226, at *7-*8 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016) 

(Battaglia, J.).

Accordingly, this court finds that the state court’s finding that some evidence 

supported the hearing officer’s decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an 

unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, and was not based on an 

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state 

court proceedings.

Order.

The court finds that Munoz fails to state a meritorious claim under federal habeas 

review, and RECOMMENDS that the district judge DENY the Petition and dismiss it 

with prejudice.

This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). IT IS ORDERED that no later 

than August 25, 2017, any party to this action may file written objections with the court 

and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Report 

and Recommendation.” IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections 

must be filed with the court and served on all parties no later than September 5, 2017. 

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 

the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02447-CAB-NLS Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6