Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01658-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. Horel
Respondent
Justin Lomako
Petitioner

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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTIN LOMAKO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ROBERT A. HOREL, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-01658-OWW-JMD-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Petitioner Justin Lomako (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Procedural History

Petitioner is a state prisoner serving a term of eight years and five months pursuant to his

conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter with great bodily injury and firearm enhancements. 

(Answer, Ex. 5 at 3). 

In 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Fresno County Superior Court

alleging that he was denied his due process rights in connection with a prison disciplinary hearing in

2005. (Answer, Ex. 1). The Superior Court denied the petition due to Petitioner’s failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. (Id.).

Petitioner filed a second state habeas petition on February 8, 2008 after exhausting his

administrative remedies. (Answer, Ex. 2). The Superior Court denied the petition on the merits. 

(Id.) Petitioner filed a third state habeas petition which was denied as successive. (Answer, Ex. 4).

Case 1:08-cv-01658-OWW -JMD Document 17 Filed 03/02/10 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

 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed 1

after its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997), cert.

denied, 522 U.S. 1008, 118 S.Ct. 586 (1997) (quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied,

520 U.S. 1107, 117 S.Ct. 1114 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059 (1997)

(holding AEDPA only applicable to cases filed after statute's enactment). The instant petition was filed after the enactment

of the AEDPA and is therefore governed by its provisions.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the California Supreme Court. The

California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition on September 24, 2008. (Answer, Ex. 6).

Factual Background

Petitioner does not challenge his conviction or sentence in this action. Rather, Petitioner

contends that he was denied his due process rights in connection with a prison disciplinary hearing

conducted in December of 2005. Accordingly, the factual background relevant to the instant action

concerns the process afforded to Petitioner in connection with his 2005 disciplinary hearing.

According to the complaining officer, Petitioner attempted to slam his cell door on the officer

during an inspection for contraband. (Answer, Ex. 1 at 72). Petitioner subsequently pled not guilty

to a rules violation report concerning the incident and received a hearing before a Senior Hearing

Officer on December 26, 2005. (Id.). Petitioner was given notice of the hearing and was informed

of the evidence upon which his charge was based. (Id). Petitioner did not testify at his hearing but

did call one witness, inmate Plitt. (Id. at 73). Plitt testified “ I didn’t see what took place prior to the

incident. All I witnessed was an officer turn [Petitioner] around, causing [Petitioner] to strike his

head on the locker. That was all I saw as I walked by.” (Id. at 78). The Senior Hearing officer

found Petitioner guilty of the offense and assessed a credit forfeiture of one-hundred and fifty days.

(Id. at 72). Petitioner was advised of his right to appeal. (Id.).

Discussion

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

A person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court may file a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus in the United States district courts if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. 1

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375, n.7 (2000). As Petitioner asserts that he has been denied due process of

Case 1:08-cv-01658-OWW -JMD Document 17 Filed 03/02/10 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 It appears Petitioner has been released from Pelican Bay. (See Doc. 15, Change of Address ). 

2

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

law in violation of rights under the United States Constitution, and because Petitioner alleges that the

constitutional deprivation will prolong his custody, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner’s

petition. See id.

2

Ordinarily, venue for a habeas corpus petition is proper in the judicial district where the

prisoner is held in custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 438 (2004)

(discussing immediate physical custodian rule). At the time Petitioner filed the instant petition, he

was incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California, which is within the

jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. Accordingly, Petitioner should have filed this

action in the Northern District. While Respondent’s answer points out that Petitioner has named an

improper party as respondent, Respondent does not ask the Court to dismiss the petition for lack of

jurisdiction or improper venue. (Answer at 1-3). Because the immediate physical custodian rule is

subject to waiver, and because the Court finds that the petition must be denied, judicial economy

favors disposing of this action without transfer. See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 452-53 (Kennedy, J.,

concurring) (stating that the immediate custodian and territorial-jurisdiction rules for 2241 actions

are akin to personal jurisdiction or venue rules) accord Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991, 994 n.2

(9th Cir. 2005) (citing Justice Kennedy’s position with approval).

II. Standard of Review

Section 2254 “is the exclusive vehicle for a habeas petition by a state prisoner in custody

pursuant to a state court judgment, even when the petitioner is not challenging his underlying state

court conviction.” Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006)

(quoting White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004)). Under section 2254, a petition

for habeas corpus may not be granted unless the state court decision denying Petitioner’s state habeas

petition “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,

as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “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). “A federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its

Case 1:08-cv-01658-OWW -JMD Document 17 Filed 03/02/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law

erroneously or incorrectly...rather, that application must be objectively unreasonable.” Lockyer v.

Andrade,538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003) (citations omitted). State courts’ factual findings are presumed

correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1).

III. Petitioner’s Due Process Claim

Due process requires procedural protections before a prison inmate can be deprived of a

protected liberty interest in good time credits. E.g., Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional

Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 444 (1985). Where a prison disciplinary hearing may result in the

loss of good time credits, an the inmate must receive: (1) advance written notice of the disciplinary

charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call

witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement by the

factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Id. at 445 (citing

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)). Petitioner’s sole claim is that prison officials denied him

the opportunity to call a witness in his defense during a disciplinary hearing which resulted in the

loss of one-hundred fifty days credit. (Pet. at 4). 

The Court must look through the California Supreme Court’s summary denial of Petitioner’s

claim to the only reasoned decision provided by the State. Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 806

(1991). The last reasoned decision on Petitioner’s claim is the Superior Court’s order dated March

20, 2008 denying Petitioner’s state habeas petition on the merits. (Answer, Ex. 2). The Superior

Court determined that the evidence before it established that Petitioner was in fact permitted to call a

witness at his hearing. (Id.). The Superior Court’s factual finding that Petitioner called a witness at

his disciplinary hearing is presumed to be correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Petitioner presents no

evidence to the contrary.

 The record reveals that Petitioner did in fact call a witness, inmate Plitt, at his disciplinary

hearing. Exhibit C of Petitioner’s petition before the Superior Court, appended to Respondent’s

answer as Exhibit 1 in this action, is the Rules Violation Report issued to Petitioner in connection

with the November 2005 incident. (Answer, Ex. 1 at 70-79). The report states that Petitioner called

Case 1:08-cv-01658-OWW -JMD Document 17 Filed 03/02/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 5

Plitt as a witness at his hearing. (Id. at 73). After hearing Plitt’s statement, the Senior Hearing

Officer dismissed Plitt because, according to Plitt’s own statement, Plitt did not witness the events

relevant to Petitioner’s defense. (Id.). Petitoiner’s defense was that he did not see the correctional

officer standing in the doorway and did not intend to slam the door on him. (Id.). The Superior

Court evaluated the Rules Violation Report and determined it was credible evidence sufficient to

defeat Petitioner’s conclusory allegation that he was not permitted to call a witness. (See Answer,

Ex. 2).

Petitioner fails to provide clear and convincing evidence that the Superior Court’s finding,

that Petitioner called a witness at his disciplinary hearing, was erroneous. Accordingly, the Court

may not disturb the Superior Court’s factual determination. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) (establishing

clear and convincing evidence standard). In light of the record, the Court cannot say that the

Superior Court’s denial of Petitioner’s due process claim was objectively unreasonable, and therefore

Petitioner is not entitled to relief. Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 75. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus be DENIED WITH PREJUDICE and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter

judgment for Respondent. 

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. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 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 (9th Cir. 1991).

Case 1:08-cv-01658-OWW -JMD Document 17 Filed 03/02/10 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2010 /s/ John M. Dixon 

hkh80h UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01658-OWW -JMD Document 17 Filed 03/02/10 Page 6 of 6