Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06233/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06233-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Edwards
Petitioner
John Marshall
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR EDWARDS, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6233 AWI WMW HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner, 

vs. [Doc. 29, 32]

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden 

Respondent.

 /

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On March 31, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. These Findings and

Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any objections

to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Petitioner filed objections

on May 1, 2006. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has conducted a de

novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. th

Case 1:03-cv-06233-AWI-WMW Document 34 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1983). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the Findings and Recommendations

to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. As explained by the Magistrate Judge,

Petitioner has a liberty interest in having a correct prison record only if false designations in his

record impose an atypical and significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of

prison life. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 484 (1995). In determining whether the designation imposes

an atypical and significant hardship, the court must find that the gang validation will inevitably affect

the duration of Petitioner’s sentence. Id. at 487. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the

decision to release a prisoner rests on a myriad of considerations, and Petitioner has been and will

continue to be afforded an opportunity to explain designations in his file. Thus, the court cannot

find the designation is the reason why Petitioner’s parole was denied.

In order for Petitioner to set forth a cognizable claim to have erroneous information expunged

from his file under the due process clause, Petitioner must show that 1) the offending information is

in his file, 2) that the information is false, and 3) that it is being relied on to a constitutionally

significant degree. Paine v. Baker, 595 F.2d 197, 201 (4 Cir. 1979), cert denied, 444 U.S. 925, 100 th

S.Ct. 263. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, there is insufficient evidence to conclude the

information is false. There is evidence that Petitioner has admitted being a member a “crip.” 

Plaintiff simply disputes this evidence. A prisoner’s dispute of evaluations and opinions regarding

him is insufficient. Paine, 595 F.2d at 201. In addition, to prevail on his expungement claim,

Petitioner must demonstrate that the parole board relied on the false information to a constitutionally

significant degree. Paine, 595 F.2d 201-02. Although the Fourth Circuit in Paine indicated that an

inmate might obtain relief where the State is likely to rely on the false information in making a

parole decision, after Sandin, an inmate must show that the false information will inevitably lengthen

the duration of the inmate's incarceration. Petitioner has failed to point to any evidence that the

designation will inevitably lengthen Petitioner’s sentence. The false information may be considered

by the parole board, but California's regulations do not require that parole be denied in the face of

such a charge. Thus, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner is not entitled to

habeas corpus relief.

 

Case 1:03-cv-06233-AWI-WMW Document 34 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on 

 March 31, 2006, are a adopted in full;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06233-AWI-WMW Document 34 Filed 07/24/06 Page 3 of 3