Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03670/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03670-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. S. Evans
Respondent
Clarence V. Knight
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE V. KNIGHT,

Petitioner,

 v.

M. S. EVANS, Warden, 

 Respondent. ________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3670 SBA (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND

GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

STATUS

Petitioner Clarence V. Knight, a state prisoner incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison

(SVSP) in Soledad, California, filed this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an

application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Venue is proper because Petitioner is challenging

prison discipline being imposed while he is incarcerated at SVSP, which is located in this judicial

district. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(a), 2241(d).

BACKGROUND

According to his petition, Petitioner was issued a Rules Violation Report (RVR) at California

State Prison, Los Angeles County (CSP-LAC) for violation of the California Code of Regulations,

Title 15 § 3006(a), possession of inmate manufactured weapons. He pled not guilty and was

provided with an institutional disciplinary hearing on April 21, 2003. The hearing culminated in

Petitioner being found guilty of violating § 3006(a). He was assessed 360 days loss of behavioral

credit. Because he was assessed the loss of behavioral credits, his term of confinement will be

lengthened. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition alleging that his due process rights were violated during

his disciplinary hearing. Petitioner claims that he was not allowed to call his inmate witness to

testify during the hearing, the inmate witness was not interviewed, and the correctional officers who

did testify were not asked some of his requested questions (claim one). He also alleges that he was

not allowed to present photographic evidence of weapons confiscated in his cell on a prior occasion

(claim two). Petitioner further alleges that SVSP officials interfered with his constitutional right to

Case 4:05-cv-03670-SBA Document 10 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 5
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

2

access to the courts when his related 602 inmate appeal was not accepted for review at the Director's

level because prison officials mistakenly claimed that it was untimely (claim three).

The present petition was filed on September 13, 2005. Petitioner alleges that he exhausted

the claims raised in his petition by filing state habeas petitions in the Los Angeles County Superior

Court, the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California. All three habeas

petitions were denied. 

DISCUSSION

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus" on 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); see Rose v.

Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). The court shall issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted unless it plainly appears from the petition that the petitioner

is not entitled to relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases

Under § 2254. 

Petitioner's procedural due process challenges to his disciplinary proceeding are properly

brought in a habeas petition because success in this action would shorten the length of his

confinement. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998) (holding that any claim by a

prisoner attacking the validity or duration of his confinement must be brought under the habeas

sections of Title 28 of the United States Code). 

Petitioner presented his claims to this Court in a timely manner, he alleges that he fulfilled his

duty to exhaust his state judicial remedies, and he asserts claims that are cognizable on federal habeas

review. Therefore, Respondent is directed to SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 2) is GRANTED.

Case 4:05-cv-03670-SBA Document 10 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order and the petition and all

attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent's attorney, the Attorney General of the State of

California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this Order on the Petitioner at his most current

address. 

3. Respondent shall file with this Court and serve upon Petitioner, no later than thirty

(30) days of the issuance of this Order, an Answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. 

Respondent shall file with the Answer a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been

transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse with the

Court and serving it on Respondent no later than thirty (30) days of his receipt of the Answer. 

Should Petitioner fail to do so, the petition will be deemed submitted and ready for decision fortyfive (45) days after the date Petitioner is served with Respondent's Answer. 

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Answer,

as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on Respondent an

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion no later than forty-five (45) days of receipt

of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner a reply no later than

fifteen (15) days of receipt of any opposition.

5. It is Petitioner's responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk of the Court headed

"NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS," and comply with any orders of the Court within the time

allowed or ask for an extension of that time. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v.

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 

6. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court, whether by way of

formal legal motions or informal letters, must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the

document to Respondent's counsel. 

Case 4:05-cv-03670-SBA Document 10 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 5
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.05\Knight3670.OSC-discipline.frm 4

7. Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. 

However, the party making a motion for an extension of time is not relieved from his or her duty to

comply with the deadlines set by the Court merely by having made a motion for an extension of time. 

The party making the motion must still meet the deadlines set by the Court until an order addressing

the motion for an extension of time is issued. Any motion for an extension of time must be filed no

later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline sought to be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1/16/08 _______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03670-SBA Document 10 Filed 01/17/08 Page 4 of 5
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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.05\Knight3670.OSC-discipline.frm 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KNIGHT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EVANS et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV05-03670 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 17, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Clarence V. Knight C07508

Salinas Valley State

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960

Dated: January 17, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:05-cv-03670-SBA Document 10 Filed 01/17/08 Page 5 of 5