Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02658/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02658-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT TUNSTALL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2658 RRB JFM P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims that his federal constitutional due

process rights were violated by a 2003 prison disciplinary conviction for resisting staff

necessitating use of force. Petitioner claims that his medical condition was not adequately

considered by the hearing officer, that he was not allowed to question his witnesses, that he was

not allowed to call a witness, that he was not allowed to present documents in their entirety, and

that prison officials failed to appoint a staff assistant to aid him in the disciplinary proceedings.

FACTS

On February 28, 2003, a written rules violation report was issued charging

petitioner with resisting staff necessitating use of force. Ex. A to Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, filed December 16, 2004. The charging officer wrote the following grounds for the

charges:

Case 2:04-cv-02658-JAM -JFM Document 33 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 6
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

2

 On Thursday, February 27, 2003, while assigned as the Facility

“B” Sergeant the following occurred: At approximately 0735

hours I observed an inmate later identified as Inmate TUNSTALL,

B-79295, . . . , to be standing outside the dining area just standing

around impeding the flow of traffic that was exiting the dining hall. 

I ordered I/M TUNSTALL to keep walking, my order was ignored. 

I instructed C/O Ceja who was standing about three feet away from

me to handcuff I/M Tunstall and escort him to the Facility Medical

Office. As C/O Ceja approached the clinic with I/M TUNSTALL,

he started resisting by pulling away. The yard was put down and I

responded to the area. I told I/M TUNSTALL to stop resisting. 

I/M TUNSTALL continued to resist. I pulled my MK-9 from the

holder and told I/M TUNSTALL if he continued to resist I would

use OC spray on him. I/M TUNSTALL complied and stopped

resisting. He was escorted to the holding cage in Facility “B”

clinic without further incident. I/M TUNSTALL is not a

participant in the MHDS and has a TABE score above 4.0.

Ex. A to Petition, at 1.

On March 26, 2003, a hearing was held on the disciplinary charges. Petitioner

was permitted to call two inmate witnesses. Ex. A to Petition, at 2. The hearing officer deemed

the statements of both witnesses irrelevant “due to the incident happening after the handcuffs

were already on Inmate TUNSTALL.” Id. In his defense, petitioner made the following

statement: “I have memory loss so I cannot provide a statement at this time.” Id. Petition

offered “numerous documents confirming he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.” Id. 

The hearing officer found petitioner guilty based on the reporting officer’s statement. Id. 

Petitioner lost thirty days of time credits as a result of the disciplinary conviction. Id. at 3.

ANALYSIS

I. Standards for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

I. Standards for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

Federal habeas corpus relief is not available for any claim decided on the merits in

state court proceedings unless the state court's 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

Case 2:04-cv-02658-JAM -JFM Document 33 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 6
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

3

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

State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

Under section 2254(d)(1), a state court decision is “contrary to” clearly

established United States Supreme Court precedents if it applies a rule that contradicts the

governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases, or if it confronts a set of facts that are materially

indistinguishable from a decision of the Supreme Court and nevertheless arrives at different 

result. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 7 (2002) (citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-406

(2000)). 

Under the “unreasonable application” clause of section 2254(d)(1), a federal

habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle

from the Supreme Court’s decisions, but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the

prisoner’s case. Williams, 529 U.S. at 413. A federal habeas court “may not issue the writ

simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court

decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that

application must also be unreasonable.” Id. at 412; see also Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 

123 S.Ct. 1166, 1175 (2003) (it is “not enough that a federal habeas court, in its independent

review of the legal question, is left with a ‘firm conviction’ that the state court was ‘erroneous.’”)

The court looks to the last reasoned state court decision as the basis for the state

court judgment. Avila v. Galaza, 297 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 2002). Where the state court

reaches a decision on the merits but provides no reasoning to support its conclusion, a federal

habeas court independently reviews the record to determine whether habeas corpus relief is

available under section 2254(d). Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2000). 

II. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner contends that his right to due process was violated in several respects by

the disciplinary conviction. The last reasoned state court rejection of petitioner’s claims is the

Case 2:04-cv-02658-JAM -JFM Document 33 Filed 02/15/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

decision of the Kings County Superior Court on petitioner’s state petition for writ of habeas

corpus. Ex. 4 to Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed December 29, 2006. Citing

Superintendent v. Hill, 105 S.Ct. 2768 (1985), the state superior court denied the petition on the

ground that there was “some evidence” to support the hearing officer’s decision. Id. 

Prison inmates subjected to disciplinary action resulting in a loss of a protectible

liberty interest are entitled to minimum procedural protections under the Due Process clause. 

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Inmates have a right to call and present

witnesses and documentary evidence. Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 495 (1985). Further, a prison

disciplinary board determination must be supported by “some evidence in the record.” 

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

As noted above, petitioner claims that his medical condition was not adequately

considered by the hearing officer, that he was not allowed to present documents related to his

medical condition in their entirety, that he was not allowed to question his witnesses, that he was

not allowed to call a witness, and that prison officials failed to appoint a staff assistant to aid him

in the disciplinary proceedings.

In the disciplinary decision, the hearing officer referred only to documentation

confirming that petitioner suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. See Ex. A to Petition. 

Petitioner’s contention in these proceedings, and on his administrative appeal from the

disciplinary conviction, was that his recent brain surgery and the antiseizure medications he was

on following that surgery were not adequately considered by the hearing officer. See Exs. C-F to

Petition. It is unclear what documents were before the hearing officer. The record reflects,

however, that at the second level of administrative review of the disciplinary conviction a

pharmacist advised the investigating officer that “it is unlikely [petitioner]’s medication would

have caused [him] to react in the manner [he] did, and resist staff while in handcuffs.” Ex. H to

Petition, at 5. The evidence presented by petitioner in these proceedings is not contrary to this

conclusion. 

Case 2:04-cv-02658-JAM -JFM Document 33 Filed 02/15/08 Page 4 of 6
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

 California regulations provide that an inmate is entitled to staff assistance with the 1

disciplinary proceedings only when the chief disciplinary officer “determines that the nature of

the inmate's need for assistance will require a confidential relationship ... for the preparation and

presentation of the inmate’s defense.” Cal.Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3318(b). 

5

Moreover, in order to satisfy the requirements of due process a disciplinary

conviction must be supported by “some evidence.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. at 454-55. 

This standard prevents “arbitrary deprivations without threatening institutional interests or

imposing undue administrative burdens.” Id. at 455. Petitioner’s disciplinary conviction is

supported by “some evidence” in the record. The court finds no due process violation from any

alleged failure to adequately consider petitioner’s medical condition in the disciplinary

proceedings.

Petitioner also claims that he was not allowed to question his witnesses, and that

he was not permitted to call the California Department of Corrections’ Ombudsman as a witness. 

The record reflects that petitioner requested two inmate witnesses, both of whom were allowed to

give statements. See Ex. A to Petition. Petitioner apparently sought to call the Ombudsman to

testify about a telephone call made after the incident at bar. There is no evidence that a request to

call the Ombudsman was made to the hearing officer at the time of the hearing. Even if the

request was made, there is no showing that the failure to permit plaintiff to call this witness

violated his right to due process. 

Petitioner’s final contention is that he was not allowed a staff assistance to help

him with the disciplinary proceedings. Prison inmates do not have the right to assistance of 1

counsel in prison disciplinary proceedings. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570. On the other hand,

“[w]here an illiterate inmate is involved, however, 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, he should be free to seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or if

that is forbidden, to have adequate substitute aid in the form of help from the staff or from a

sufficiently competent inmate designated by the staff.” Id. The record before the court does not

Case 2:04-cv-02658-JAM -JFM Document 33 Filed 02/15/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

show that petitioner is illiterate, or that he was unable to comprehend the charges against him

sufficiently to defend against the charges without a staff assistant. Petitioner’s due process rights

were not violated by the absence of staff assistance. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, this court finds that the state court’s denial of

petitioner’s challenge to his 2003 disciplinary conviction was neither contrary to, nor an

unreasonable application of, applicable principles of clearly established federal law. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for

a writ of habeas corpus be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” 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).

DATED: February 14, 2008.

/tuns2658.157

Case 2:04-cv-02658-JAM -JFM Document 33 Filed 02/15/08 Page 6 of 6