Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01695/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01695-1/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

- 1 - 10cv1695

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LENIN GARCIA, Civil No. 10-cv-01695-LAB (POR)

Petitioner, PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT AND

RECOMMENDATION THAT

PETITIONER’S FIRST AMENDED

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS BE DENIED

[ECF No. 3]

v.

GEORGE NEOTTI, Warden - Richard J.

Donovan Correctional Facility

Respondent.

On October 13, 2010, Petitioner Lenin Garcia (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro

se, filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking

relief following the issuance of a prison counseling chrono while housed at Richard J. Donovan

Correctional Facility. (ECF No. 3.) Petitioner claims he was wrongfully found guilty of a prison

infraction in violation of his right to due process. (Id.) Petitioner further alleges the state court’s

denial of his state petition for writ of habeas corpus was decided on improper grounds. (Id.)

In his Answer, Respondent contends the petition is successive and fails to allege a cognizable

claim for federal habeas corpus relief. (ECF No. 9 at 6-8.) 

In accordance with Local Rule 72.1(d), this Court issues the following Proposed Findings of

Fact and Recommendation for Disposition. For the reasons set forth below, the Court respectfully

recommends that the Petition be DENIED.

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-01695-LAB-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 7
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

“The CDC 128-A form is considered an administrative action and used to document minor

disciplinary infractions pursuant to California Code of Regulations title 15, sections 3084.7 and 3312.”

(ECF No. 9 at 2.)

- 2 - 10cv1695

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Because the facts of Petitioner’s underlying conviction are not relevant to the issues raised in

the First Amended Petition, they are not included in this section. Instead, the Court briefly

summarizes the facts related to Petitioner being issued a counseling chrono. Petitioner is a life

prisoner in custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation who is serving

two consecutive life sentences plus five years for convictions of kidnapping for ransom, attempted

extortion, assault with a deadly weapon, second degree robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. 

(ECF No. 9 at 1-2.)

On October 14, 2008, Petitioner was serving in his capacity as a member of the Men’s

Advisory Counsel (“MAC”), an elected association of inmates who act as advocates for inmate

interests and as liasons between the inmates and prison administration. (ECF No. 3 at 16, 22.) 

Petitioner contends he asked a correctional officer to let him out on the prison yard to conduct duties

pertaining to the MAC. (Id. at 16.) Correctional Officer (now Correctional Sergeant) D. Reed was

operating the control booth at the time Petitioner sought to gain entrance to the prison yard. (Id.) 

Petitioner alleges Officer Reed did not permit him to access the yard in retaliation for prior issues

the officer had with Petitioner. (Id.) Also, on October 14, 2008, Petitioner claims he filed a

grievance against Officer Reed for refusing to let him access the prison yard. (Id.) 

On October 26, 2008, Officer Reed assessed Petitioner with a 128-A1

 write-up alleging

Petitioner misuses his MAC authority by playing cards when he is supposed to be performing

official duties, Petitioner is “constantly late in locking up,” and Petitioner “fails to program.” (ECF

No. 3, Exhibit C.) Petitioner has submitted an exhibit that places him in a different location at the

time Officer Reed claims he was playing cards. (Id. at Exhibit D.)

B. Procedural Background

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in San Diego County Superior Court on

October 6, 2009. (ECF No. 3 at 21.) The petition alleged his right to due process was violated

Case 3:10-cv-01695-LAB-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 7
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 - 10cv1695

because the 128-A was arbitrary and unsupported by the evidence. (Id. at 22.) On the same day, the

court issued an Order for Informal Response, finding that Petitioner made a prima facie case for

relief because an arbitrary disciplinary write-up may affect Petitioner’s parole suitability

determination. (Id.) Following a review of the parties’ informal responses, the court denied the

petition for failure to state a claim citing In re Johnson (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 290 because

Petitioner did not suffer a loss of credits based on the 128-A. (Id. at 22-23.) 

On May 5, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court

of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, containing the same allegations as the Superior

Court petition. (ECF No. 3 at 25.) The appeal was denied on the basis that Petitioner’s 128-A did

not impose an atypical and significant hardship on him, a requirement for judicial review of a prison

disciplinary action expounded by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). (Id. at 25-26.) 

On May 5, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California

Supreme Court alleging the same claims as his previous petitions. (Lodgment 5.) The court denied

the petition without comment on July 14, 2010. (ECF No. 3 at 27.)

On August 11, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (ECF

No. 1.) The petition contained the same allegations as his state court petitions. (Id.) On August 20,

2010, this Court issued an Order dismissing the petition without prejudice, and with leave to amend,

for failure to pay the filing fee, failing to submit the proper form, and failure to state a cognizable

habeas claim. (ECF No. 2.)

On October 13, 2010, Petitioner filed his First Amended Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus

containing the same substantive arguments as his previous petitions. (ECF No. 3.) On December

20, 2010, Respondent filed an Answer to Petitioner’s First Amended Petition For Writ of Habeas

Corpus. (ECF No. 9.) Petitioner filed a Traverse to his First Amended Petition on January 3, 2011. 

(ECF No. 10.) 

II. Standard of Review

Title 28 U.S.C. section 2254(a), allows for federal review of “the judgment of a State court

only on the ground that [the habeas petitioner] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws

or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (2007). The Antiterrorism and Effective

Case 3:10-cv-01695-LAB-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 7
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 - 10cv1695

Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) applies to habeas corpus petitions filed after 1996. Lindh v.

Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). The current petition was filed in 2010, and is governed by the

AEDPA. As amended by the AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d) reads:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant

to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that

was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of

the claim-- 

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable

application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court

of the United States; or 

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the

facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

In addition to the AEDPA’s limitation of federal court review to “violation[s] of the

Constitution of laws or treaties of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), the United States

Supreme Court has also instructed that “it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine

state-court determinations on state-law questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-8 (1991). 

Federal habeas review is available to assess the constitutionality of a judgment of a state

court. Where there is no reasoned decision from the state’s highest court to review, a federal court

“looks through” the silent state court decision to the “last reasoned opinion” issued in the state’s

courts. Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803, 805 (1991). In Petitioner’s case, the California

Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s state petition for writ of habeas corpus without comment. 

Therefore, in reviewing Petitioner’s claims, this Court looks to the reasoned opinion by the

California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, dated May 18, 2010 (ECF No.

3 at 25) - which denied Petitioner’s Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Ylst, 501 U.S. at 801-06.

III. Discussion

A. Petitioner’s First Amended Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus is Not Successive

Respondent’s first argument is that the First Amended Petition is successive because it raises

the same legal claims as a prior petition filed in this court. (ECF No. 9 at 6.) Respondent contends

as a successive petition, Petitioner’s First Amended Petition must be dismissed because none of the

exceptions to AEDPA’s bar on successive petitions applies. (Id.)

On August 11, 2010, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. On

Case 3:10-cv-01695-LAB-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 7
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

- 5 - 10cv1695

August 24, 2010, the Court dismissed the Petition for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to use the

proper forms, and failure to state a cognizable habeas claim. (ECF No. 2.) Petitioner filed his First

Amended Petition after he corrected the two technical deficiencies (filing fee and improper form). 

(ECF No. 3.) While Petitioner has previously filed a petition in this Court, the original petition was

filed in the instant case and was dismissed without prejudice, and with leave to amend. (ECF No. 2.) 

When an initial petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for technical reasons, a subsequent

petition is not considered to be successive. See Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 645

(1998). Because the First Amended Petition cures the pleading deficiencies of a previous petition

that Petitioner was given leave to amend, it is not successive. See Stewart, 523 U.S. at 645. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition NOT be DENIED on

the basis that it is successive. 

B. Petitioner Has Not Stated a Cognizable Claim for Habeas Corpus Relief

Petitioner raises the instant petition challenging the 128-A write-up, which he exhausted

administratively by appealing the decision to the highest possible administrative level. (ECF No. 3,

Exhibit F.) Petitioner contends the manner in which his 128-A write-up was processed

administratively, and how the California Superior Court reached their denial of his state court

petition regarding the infraction, all amount to constitutional violations. (Id. at 16-20.) 

On December 20, 2010, Respondent filed an Answer in response to Petitioner’s First

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 9.) In his answer, Respondent contends Petitioner has failed to

state a cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief. (Id. at 7-8.) Specifically, Respondent

alleges Petitioner’s 128-A write-up did not affect the duration of his sentence or impose an “atypical

and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” (Id. at 7

(citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 487 (1995)).) 

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are properly brought by a petition for writ

of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to the conditions of confinement,

however, are properly brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973). When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or

duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to

Case 3:10-cv-01695-LAB-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/11 Page 5 of 7
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

- 6 - 10cv1695

immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of

habeas corpus. Id. at 500. Constitutional challenges arising from the conditions of prison life and

not pertaining to the fact or length of custody, however, are properly addressed in a § 1983 action

rather than a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States Parole

Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th cir. 1997).

After reviewing Petitioner’s First Amended Petition and all accompanying documents, it

appears that a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to § 2254 is not the proper

vehicle for Petitioner’s claims. The instant petition, like all of Petitioner’s prior petitions, challenges

the conditions of Petitioner’s prison life rather than the fact or length of his custody. Petitioner’s

fundamental complaint arises from an allegedly groundless rules violation he received in retaliation

for filing complaints against prison staff. (ECF No. 3 at 16.) However, by Petitioner’s own

admission, he did not suffer a loss of credits as a result of the violation. (Id.) Thus, Petitioner has

not stated a cognizable habeas claim because he is not challenging the duration of his confinement. 

See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Presier, 411 U.S. at 500; Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85

(1994)(emphasis added.) 

If a prisoner is not challenging the duration of his sentence in a petition for writ of habeas

corpus in federal court, the only remaining cause of action would be to challenge the constitutional

validity of the underlying state court conviction. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). Here, Petitioner’s

complaint cannot be interpreted to claim his state court conviction violates the Constitution or laws

of the United States. It is plain from the First Amended Petition that Petitioner is claiming the

issuance of a prison counseling chrono violated his right to due process, not his state court

conviction. Therefore, since “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.” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. §

2254, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS Petitioner’s First Amended Petition be DENIED.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:10-cv-01695-LAB-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/11 Page 6 of 7
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

- 7 - 10cv1695

IV. Conclusion

After thorough review of the record in this matter and based on the foregoing analysis, this

Court recommends that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED. This Proposed

Findings of Fact and Recommendation for Disposition of the undersigned Magistrate Judge is

submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, the Honorable Larry Burns,

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2007) and Local Rule 72.1(d).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than August 10, 2011, any party may file and

serve 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 shall be filed and served no

later than fourteen days after being served with the objections. 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, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 15, 2011

LOUISA S PORTER

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: The Honorable Larry Burns

all parties

Case 3:10-cv-01695-LAB-DHB Document 11 Filed 07/15/11 Page 7 of 7