Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04749/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04749-0/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

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04749_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.

JAMES HOREL, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-04749 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 Pelican Bay State

Prison (“PBSP”) that resulted in the forfeiture of good time credits. Finding the

petition stated cognizable claims 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.

BACKGROUND

On April 27, 2005, while petitioner was incarcerated in the administrative

segregation unit at PBSP, petitioner was placed in a single man holding cage to

Case 5:06-cv-04749-JW Document 8 Filed 12/19/07 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

1

 Petitioner spelled this officer’s name as “McGuire” while all documents

prepared by PBSP prison officials spell this officer’s name as “McGuyer.” 

Petitioner has not disputed that this officer is the same individual he refers to in his

petition. 

2 A staff assistant was not assigned because petitioner spoke English, was

literate, and petitioner confirmed that staff assistance was not necessary. (Pet. Ex. A

at 3.) 

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04749_denyHC.wpd 2

await escort to the Institutions Classification Committee (“ICC”). (Pet. 7.) 

According to the petition, Officer D. Harlow came to petitioner’s cell to escort

petitioner to ICC. Id. When Officer Harlow ordered petitioner to turn around and

back out of the cell, petitioner continued to face Officer Harlow and told her, “Open

up the door. I will back out.” (Pet. 8.) Officer Harlow repeated the order to turn

around, but petitioner did not comply. Id. Another officer, Sergeant C. McGuyer1

,

was summoned. Under Sergeant McGuyer’s direction, petitioner backed out of the

cell and was escorted to ICC. Id. On April 29, 2005, petitioner was issued a CDC

Form 115 Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) by Officer Harlow, charging petitioner

with refusal to obey a direct order. (Pet. Ex. A at 1.) 

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

notice of the hearing and the charges against him. (Pet. Ex. A at 3.) At the hearing,

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

the testimonies of Officer Harlow and Sergeant McGuyer, and petitioner’s own

testimony, petitioner was found guilty of the charged offense and assessed a thirty

day forfeiture of good time credits. Id. No investigative employee (“IE”) was

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

hearing.2

 Id. Petitioner requested Officer Harlow and Sergeant McGuyer as

witnesses at the hearing. Id.

Petitioner administratively exhausted his remedies through the prison appeals

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

Supreme Court on July 12, 2006. (Pet. Ex. E at 2.) Petitioner filed the instant

federal petition on August 4, 2006.

Case 5:06-cv-04749-JW Document 8 Filed 12/19/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04749_denyHC.wpd 3

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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

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 the right to have an IE

assist in his defense; 3) the RVR was issued in retaliation for petitioner’s prior

grievances against prison officials; and 4) the hearing was fundamentally unfair

because the senior hearing officer (the “SHO”) was biased against petitioner. Of

these four claims, claims 1 and 2 allege violations of procedural due process

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

1– 2. 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)). 

Case 5:06-cv-04749-JW Document 8 Filed 12/19/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04749_denyHC.wpd 4

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

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. A at 3.) Therefore, the first three procedural protections under Wolff were

satisfied in petitioner’s case. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564.

Petitioner’s first claim regarding witnesses arises under Wolff’s fourth

requirement that a prisoner should be allowed to call witnesses in his defense. Id.

However, the right to present a defense is not absolute and prison officials retain

“the necessary discretion to keep the hearing within reasonable limits.” Id.

Petitioner claims that he was not allowed to present as a witness Correctional Officer

Tackett at the hearing. (Pet. 11.) Petitioner claims that Officer Tackett was

responsible for placing petitioner in the holding cell prior to the disciplinary

incident. However there is no evidence in the record showing that petitioner

requested Officer Tackett as a witness or that such a request was denied. The record

shows that at the time petitioner received the RVR, he requested “Sergeant

McGuire” as witness for the hearing. (Pet. Ex. A. at 2.) This request was granted,

and the record shows that Sergeant McGuyer appeared as a witness at the hearing. 

(Pet. Ex. A at 3.) Petitioner does not dispute that the officer he requested was the

same officer who appeared as a witness. See supra note 1. At the hearing,

petitioner requested Officer Harlow as a witness, and this request was also granted. 

Case 5:06-cv-04749-JW Document 8 Filed 12/19/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04749_denyHC.wpd 5

Id. Petitioner’s claim that he was denied his right to have witnesses appear in his

defense is without merit. 

Petitioner’s second claim is that due process was violated when he was

denied his right to an IE to assist in his defense. Petitioner claims that an IE should

have been appointed to investigate whether there existed a policy requiring inmates

to turn around to have their restraints checked before being removed from a cell. 

Wolff states that whether an IE should be appointed, which is the fifth procedural

protection, 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

initially assigned because the issues were not complex and the available information

was sufficient. (Pet. Ex. A at 3.) The IE assignment was ultimately denied because

petitioner “failed to show an assigned IE would obtain any additional, relevant

information required for his defense or that his housing restriction prevented

[petitioner] from obtaining his own information.” Id. 

Petitioner’s claim that the failure to assign an IE to his case constitutes a

violation of due process is without merit. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how

he was unable to collect information on his own or that the information he would

have obtained through an IE was relevant to the disciplinary proceedings. When

asked at the hearing why he wanted an IE, petitioner stated, “Fuck your dead

momma Mother Fucker[]. I’m a worrier and I am going to die a worrier.” (Pet. Ex.

A at 3.) Because petitioner provided no reason at the hearing why an IE was

necessary, it cannot be said that the SHO’s denial of the request was unreasonable. 

Furthermore, although petitioner claims in the petition that an IE was necessary to

investigate whether there existed a policy that prisoner’s restraints be checked before

removal from a holding cell, petitioner still fails to show how the existence or nonexistence of such a policy was relevant to the issues of the proceedings. Therefore,

Case 5:06-cv-04749-JW Document 8 Filed 12/19/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04749_denyHC.wpd 6

it cannot be said that he was denied due process by not having an IE appointed to

assist in gathering irrelevant information. Consequently, petitioner was afforded all

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

Additionally, 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 in the RVR, the testimonies of Officer Harlow and Sergeant McGuyer, and

petitioner’s own testimony at the hearing. (Pet. Ex. A at 4.) Officer Harlow’s

testimony in the RVR stated that she gave several orders to petitioner to turn around

so she could inspect his handcuffs, and that petitioner refused to comply. Id. She

further testified that Sergeant McGuyer came to the cell and gave petitioner the same

order several times before petitioner complied. Id. At the hearing, Officer Harlow

gave additional testimony that the reason she wanted petitioner to turn around was to

inspect the handcuffs since she had not escorted petitioner to the holding cell and did

not know how long he had been there. Id. She also stated that it was common

practice to inspect restraints prior to removing inmates from the holding cells. Id.

Sergeant McGuyer testified at the hearing that she was summoned to the holding cell

by another officer, and that she gave petitioner several orders to comply before

Case 5:06-cv-04749-JW Document 8 Filed 12/19/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04749_denyHC.wpd 7

petitioner was removed from the cell, which is consistent with Officer Harlow’s

testimony. Id. Furthermore, petitioner’s testimony at the hearing that he had called

Sergeant McGuyer himself was proven to be false, as Sergeant McGuyer had

already testified that she had been summoned by another officer and not by

petitioner. Id. 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. 

3-4. Remaining Claims

Petitioner’s last two claims – that the RVR was issued in retaliation for

petitioner’s previous grievances against prison officials and that the SHO was biased

against him – are without merit. There is no evidence that Officer Harlow was

aware of petitioner’s prior grievances and complaints at the time she issued the

RVR, or that the RVR was issued in retaliation because of those prior grievances. 

Nor is there any evidence that the SHO made a predetermination of guilt before the

hearing based on petitioner’s previous complaints. Petitioner’s conclusory

allegations of violations of his federal rights, which are not supported by specific

facts, do not provide a basis for habeas corpus relief. See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d

199, 205 (9th Cir. 1995); James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Furthermore, a prisoner’s right to due process is violated “only if he [is] not

provided with process sufficient to meet the Wolff standard.” Walker v. Sumner, 14

F.3d 1415, 1420 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, petitioner was afforded all the procedural

protections mandated by Wolff. See supra at 6. Even assuming petitioner’s

allegations were true, there is some evidence on the record to support the guilty

finding regardless of the alleged retaliatory motives and bias. See Hill, 472 U.S. at

454. 

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,

Case 5:06-cv-04749-JW Document 8 Filed 12/19/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.06\Newman04749_denyHC.wpd 8

petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on any of the claims presented in the instant

petition.

CONCLUSION 

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

on the merits. The clerk shall terminate any pending motions. 

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

December 18, 2007

Case 5:06-cv-04749-JW Document 8 Filed 12/19/07 Page 8 of 8