Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00166/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00166-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bernie Ellis
Respondent
Charles Lowell Kentz
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LOWELL KENTZ,

Petitioner,

v.

BERNIE ELLIS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-0166 AWI SMS HC

ORDER STRIKING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING

RESPONDENT TO FILE AN ANSWER

ADDRESSING THE MERITS OF THE

PETITION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 15, 2006. In his

petition, Petitioner contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his disciplinary

violation for possession of anything not authorized for retention resulting in the loss of good

conduct time, the regulation is ambiguous, and the incident report was written under an improper

code. On May 9, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. (Court Doc. 8.)

Petitioner filed an opposition on May 18, 2006. (Court Doc. 10.) 

Upon a thorough review of Respondent’s motion, the Court finds it to be deficient. First,

the Court’s March 1, 2006, order to respond directed Respondent to file an answer addressing the

merits of Petitioner’s petition. (Court Doc. 6.) Second, Respondent cites to only the Code of

Federal Regulations, and does not address Petitioner’s main claim that his due process rights

Case 1:06-cv-00166-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 2
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

 A decision to revoke an inmate’s good-time credit does not comport with minimum procedural due 1

process requirements unless its underlying findings are supported by “some evidence.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472

U.S. 445, 454 (1985). 

2

were violated as a result of the disciplinary proceedings. Further, it is unclear on what ground 1

Respondent is moving for dismissal, rather it appears that Respondent is attempting to argue that

there is not merit to Petitioner’s claim, but does not address the essential nature of Petitioner’s

federal due process claim. Because of these deficiencies, the Court is striking Respondent’s

motion to dismiss from the record, and directing Respondent to submit an answer addressing the

merits of Petitioner’s federal claim(s), supported with any and all necessary evidence. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed May 9, 2006, is STRICKEN from the

record;

2. Respondent shall file an answer addressing the merits of the petition, within thirty

(30) days from the date of service of this order; and

3. Within thirty days from the date Respondent files his answer, Petitioner may file a

traverse. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00166-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 2