Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00467/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00467-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Pierce Plummer
Petitioner
W. J. Sullivan
Respondent

Document Text:

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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM PIERCE PLUMMER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

W. J. SULLIVAN, Warden, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-CV-00467 OWW SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action has been referred to this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72-302.

On March 26, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. 

Petitioner raises four discernable grounds for relief: 1) Petitioner claims the assessment of 360 days

loss of good time credits as a result of a guilty finding in a prison disciplinary hearing is

unconstitutional; 2) He claims prison authorities have wrongfully calculated his release date in

violation of Cal. Penal Code § 2933.1(a)-(c); 3) He claims he was denied his right to a speedy trial

and adversarial testing process at the trial for his underlying conviction; and 4) He claims he will

lose $175,000 of taxable income as a result of the good time credits he has lost.

Case 1:07-cv-00467-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 04/27/07 Page 1 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears

from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990). The Advisory Committee

Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its

own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the

petition has been filed. A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend

unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v.

Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9 Cir. 1971). th

B. Venue

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants

reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action

is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in

which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In Ground Three of the petition, Petitioner challenges a 1999 conviction out of Los Angeles

County which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, the claim should have been raised

in a petition filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the

interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). However, the

Court notes that Petitioner has had two habeas petitions transferred to the Central District already.

See Case Nos. 02-2087 FCD JFM P, 04-2489 WBS DAD HC. To the extent that Petitioner wishes to

further challenge his underlying conviction, he should seek relief through his petitions before the

Central District, or file a new petition in the Central District. The Court will not transfer the petition

to the Central District because the majority of the petition centers on Petitioner's challenge to the

Case 1:07-cv-00467-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 04/27/07 Page 2 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

guilty finding in the prison disciplinary hearing. 

C. Failure to State a Claim

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall 

entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to a 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.

(emphasis added). See also, Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a

person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484

(1973).

Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must

demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court

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 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)(1),(2). 

In the instant case, Petitioner fails to state a federal claim. Although Petitioner claims a

violation of the Constitution, he only challenges the prison authorities’ application of state statute in

the computation of his sentence. His claims are entirely state law claims, and generally, issues of

state law are not cognizable on federal habeas. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67, (1991) ("We

have stated many times that 'federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.' "),

quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333, 348-49 (1993)

(O’Connor, J., concurring) (“mere error of state law, one that does not rise to the level of a

constitutional violation, may not be corrected on federal habeas”); Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227,

239 (1990), quoting, Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401, 409 (1989) (“the availability of a claim under

state law does not of itself establish that a claim was available under the United States

Constitution.”); Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942

(1989) (Federal courts are bound by state court rulings on questions of state law.). 

Case 1:07-cv-00467-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 04/27/07 Page 3 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 4

In addition, his claims are frivolous and do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

Petitioner claims he was inappropriately sentenced to a 360 day loss of time credits for the guilty

finding of possession of an inmate-manufactured deadly weapon. He claims he should only have

been assessed a maximum of 180 days loss of credits. This claim is meritless. He does not dispute

the guilty finding of possession or manufacture of a deadly weapon. Pursuant to California Code of

Regulations § 3323(b)(8), he is subject to a maximum penalty of 360 days. Therefore, the 360 loss of

good time credits comports with state law.

Petitioner also contends the total amount of lost good time credits is more than the total

amount he could earn under Cal. Penal Code § 2933.1. Under § 2933.1(a), Petitioner may not earn

more than 15% of his total sentence in good time credits. Here, Petitioner was sentenced to 12 years

in state prison. See Attachments to Petition. After deducting for post-sentence credits and vested

credits, Petitioner’s sentence amounted to a total of 4,122 days. Accordingly, the most good time

credit he can earn is 618 days (15% of 4,122 days). As a result of his several disciplinary

proceedings, however, Petitioner has amassed a total of 1293 days of lost credit. Petitioner argues his

sentence is being extended as a result, because he is losing more credit than he could possibly earn.

This is irrelevant. According to the prison’s calculation worksheet, Petitioner’s sentence remains at

the maximum date of release, which is March 14, 2011. This is the date that was originally computed

based on the 12 year sentence. Because Petitioner has amassed more lost time than he could possibly

earn, prison authorities have simply removed good time credits from the computation and left his

release date at the maximum date of March 14, 2011. In other words, Petitioner will not earn any

credit against his sentence because he is not serving “good time.” Thus, Petitioner’s allegations of

racial prejudice by prison authorities and the state courts are completely baseless. His petition should

be rejected. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas

corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

Case 1:07-cv-00467-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 04/27/07 Page 4 of 5
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 5

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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 Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). 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 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00467-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 04/27/07 Page 5 of 5