Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01506/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01506-1/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- 08-CV-1506 W (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AASIM NIA,

Petitioner,

CASE NO.08-CV-1506 W(JMA)

ORDER:

1) ADOPTS THE REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION 

(Doc. 10.) 

2) DENIES PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

(Doc. 1.)

vs.

M. SMELOSKY, Warden,

Respondent.

On July 21, 2008, Petitioner Aasim Nia (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding

pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. (Doc. 1.) On July 29, 2008, the case was transferred from the Eastern District

of California to this Court. (Id.) On October 5, 2009, Magistrate Judge Jan Adler filed

a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Court deny the

Petition. (Doc. 10.) On February 22, 2010, Petitioner filed his objections to the Report.

(Doc. 16.) The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral

argument. See Civil Local Rule 7.1(d.1). For the reasons outlined below, the Court

ADOPTS the Report and DENIES the Petition.

Case 3:08-cv-01506-W-JMA Document 17 Filed 04/21/10 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

27

28

-2- 08-CV-1506 W (JMA)

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a prisoner at Centinela State Prison. While working kitchen detail

in Dining Hall 3A on November 6, 2006, Petitioner told Correctional Officer Jimenez,

“I quit, give me my I.D. so I can go home.” Officer Jimenez informed Petitioner that he

would be marked absent for the day and that he would receive a Rules Violation Report.

Petitioner received a copy of the Violation Report, which classified the violation as

“serious,” on November 9, 2006. A hearing was held on November 21, 2006, with

Lieutenant Kavanaugh serving as the Senior Hearing Official (“SHO”). Petitioner pled

not guilty. The SHO found Petitioner guilty of the violation and he was assessed a

thirty day credit forfeiture along with a ninety day privileges suspension. 

Petitioner challenged the disciplinary action through the prison grievance system

and his appeal was denied at the highest level of review on February 28, 2001. (Lodgment

3.) He then filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the California courts, which

were denied at every level. (Lodgment 5, 7, & 9.)

On July 31, 2008, after exhausting all administrative and state remedies,

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition, raising the same due process claim. (Report

at 2.) On October 5, 2009, Magistrate Judge Adler recommended the Court deny

Petitioner's habeas request. (Report at 1,5.) On February 22, 2010, following a time

extension from the Court, Petitioner submitted his Objection. (Doc. 16.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “must make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify,

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); United

States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Case 3:08-cv-01506-W-JMA Document 17 Filed 04/21/10 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

27

28

-3- 08-CV-1506 W (JMA)

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks relief on grounds that his federal right to due process was violated

because: (1)he was denied the right to call certain witnesses; (2) he was denied the right

to question Officer Jimenez; (3) the decision was based on an incomplete record; (4) the

decision was not made by a fair and impartial decision maker; and (5) the decision was

not supported by a preponderance of evidence. (Pet. [Doc. 1] at 5–7.)

This Court is required to accord prison administrators “wide-ranging deference in

the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed

to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.” Bell v.

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979). It does, however, review prison disciplinary

proceedings to determine if they comported with due process and if some evidence

supported the decision of the prison disciplinary committee. See Superintendent v. Hill,

472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–70 (U.S. 1974). In

order for Petitioner to be entitled to habeas relief on his due process claim, he must show

that the SHO’s finding of "some evidence" was either objectively unreasonable or based

on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d); Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 5 (2003). 

Having read and considered the underlying Petition, the Report, and Petitioner’s

objections thereto, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS the

Report, and for the reasons below, DENIES Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus.

A. Grounds One and Two - Lack of Witness Testimony

In Ground One, Petitioner claims he was denied the right to call and question

certain witnesses at his disciplinary hearing. (Pet. at 5.) In Ground Two, Petitioner

claims he was denied the right to question Officer Jimenez, who was present at the

hearing. (Id.) Petitioner alleges that the denial of opportunities to call and question

witnesses violates his federal right to due process. (Id.) The Report rejects this

argument.(Report at 4.) Petitioner objects to the Report’s finding. (Obj. [Doc. 16] at 4.)

Case 3:08-cv-01506-W-JMA Document 17 Filed 04/21/10 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

27

28

-4- 08-CV-1506 W (JMA)

The record shows that the witnesses Petitioner requested were called. (Lodgement

2.) The record also indicates that Petitioner had no questions for Officer Jimenez.

(Lodgment 3, Director’s Level Appeal Response). Thus Petitioner’s due process right to call

witnesses under Wolff was met. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the analysis of the Report in regards to this

issue and DENIES Petitioner's first and second grounds for relief.

B. Grounds Three and Five - Sufficiency of the Record

In Ground Three, Petitioner claims that the SHO’s determination was based on

an incomplete record because Correctional Officer J. Campbell’s statement was not

included. (Pet. at 6.) In Ground Five, Petitioner claims that he was denied his right to

be found guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. (Pet. at 6.5) The Report rejects these

arguments. (Report at 3–5.) Petitioner objects to the Report’s finding as to Ground

Three, but does not respond to the findings on Ground Five. (Obj. at 2.) 

Under Hill, the SHO is not required to make a determination using all the

evidence, or even a preponderance of evidence. 472 U.S. at 454. As the Report shows,

the SHO used some evidence, including Officer Jimenez’ written report, to support his

determination. (Report at 4–5.) Thus, on the record before the Court, there is no

indication that Petitioner’s due process rights were violated. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the analysis of the Report in regards to this

issue and DENIES Petitioner's third and fifth grounds for relief.

C. Ground Four - Bias of the Hearing Official

In Ground Four, Petitioner claims that the SHO was not a fair and impartial

decision maker because he reported to Dining Hall 3A on the day of the incident and

presided over the hearings of other inmates charged with violations stemming from the

same incident. (Pet. at 6.) The Report rejects this argument. (Report at 4.) Petitioner

objects to the Report’s finding. (Obj. at 4–5.)

Case 3:08-cv-01506-W-JMA Document 17 Filed 04/21/10 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

27

28

-5- 08-CV-1506 W (JMA)

Due Process requires that anyone serving as the SHO at a disciplinary hearing does

not have personal knowledge of the material facts and has not participated in the case

as a witness or either an investigative or reviewing officer. Clutchette v. Procunier, 497

F.2d 809, 820 (9th Cir. 1974) (rev'd on other grounds) (citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397

U.S. 254, 271 (1970) (rev’d on other grounds.))

Petitioner alleges that the SHO (Kavanaugh) was in Dining Hall 3A on November

6, 2006, but does not allege that he was in the kitchen when the rules violation took

place. (Obj. at 5; Pet. at 6.) And presiding over the other inmates’ hearings does not

automatically render Kavanaugh unfit to preside over Petitioner’s hearing. Furthermore,

nothing in the record indicates that Kavanaugh based his decision on anything other

than Officer Jimenez’ written report, Officer Jimenez’ testimony, and the unconvincing

testimony of the five inmates. (Report at 4–5.)

Because Kavanaugh did not participate in Petitioner’s case as a witness,

investigating officer, or reviewing officer, and did not base his decision on independent

knowledge of material facts, there is no indication that he did not fulfill his obligation to

serve as an impartial arbiter.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the analysis of the Report in regards to this

issue and DENIES Petitioner's fourth ground for relief.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-01506-W-JMA Document 17 Filed 04/21/10 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

27

28

-6- 08-CV-1506 W (JMA)

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Adler’s well

reasoned analysis and ADOPTS the Report in its entirety. (Doc. 10.) The procedures

required by Wolff were provided to Petitioner. As such, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s

habeas petition and orders this case dismissed. (Doc. 1.) The Clerk of Court shall close

the district court case file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 21, 2010

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01506-W-JMA Document 17 Filed 04/21/10 Page 6 of 6