Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04956/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04956-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Respondent
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Respondent
Steven Murphy
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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN MURPHY,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION and KATHY

MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden,

Respondents.

_____________________________________/

No. C 06-4956 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Motion to Dismiss

Petitioner Steven Murphy, a California prisoner now incarcerated at Avenal State Prison in

Avenal, California, petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents’

motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is now before the

court.

BACKGROUND1

 

Before the CDC-115 (“115") violation at issue here, petitioner had only one disciplinary

infractions twenty years earlier. For several years, petitioner was an active volunteer for the

Catholic Chapel Program. In 2000 Father R. Francis Stevenson replaced the outgoing priest as the

full-time Catholic Chaplain. Shortly thereafter, Father Stevenson allegedly adopted a less orthodox

approach to services. Petitioner claims that changes initiated by Father Stevenson induced petitioner

and at least one hundred other inmates to withdraw from the program over the first eight months of

Father Stevenson’s tenure. 

Case 3:06-cv-04956-MHP Document 8 Filed 04/03/07 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

Petitioner contends that he was placed in administrative segregation and investigated for both

conspiring to undermine the Catholic Chapel Program and threatening Father Stevenson in

retaliation for withdrawing from the program. In preparation for his disciplinary hearing, petitioner

was provided the assistance of an “investigative employee” by the prison administration. The

investigative employee was assigned to assist in petitioner’s defense preparation by interviewing

prospective witnesses and obtaining relevant documents. Petitioner argues that the investigative

employee’s performance was deficient. The investigative employee allegedly failed to obtain proper

documents and investigate crucial facts, created false and defective reports, and failed to interview

key witnesses. Additionally, petitioner alleges that he was not permitted to interview witnesses to

his supposed disciplinary violations, nor was he permitted to call any witnesses to support his

position.

LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v.

Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Because Rule 12(b)(6) focuses on the “sufficiency” of a

claim, and not the claim's substantive merits, “a court may [typically] look only at the face of the

complaint to decide a motion to dismiss.” Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977,

980 (9th Cir. 2002). Although the court is generally confined to consideration of the allegations in

the pleadings, when the complaint is accompanied by attached documents, such documents are

deemed part of the complaint and may be considered in evaluating the merits of a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion. Durning v. First Boston Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1987). 

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) should be granted if “it appears beyond doubt that

the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims which would entitle him to relief.” 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46 (1957). Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable

legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Allegations of material fact are taken as

true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

Case 3:06-cv-04956-MHP Document 8 Filed 04/03/07 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

Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). The court need not, however, accept as true allegations

that are conclusory, legal conclusions, unwarranted deductions of fact or unreasonable inferences. 

See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); Clegg v. Cult Awareness

Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).

DISCUSSION

Respondents assert that petitioner fails to allege a cognizable claim for which habeas relief

may be granted. Specifically, respondents argue that expunging petitioner’s 115 disciplinary

violation is unlikely to affect the duration of petitioner’s confinement. They ask that the petition be

summarily dismissed. Petitioner disagrees, relying on transcripts of hearings conducted by the

Board of Parole Hearings where 115 violations impaired petitioner’s and another inmate’s chances

of parole. See Exh.’s Q & R. 

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in 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). “Habeas corpus

jurisdiction also exists when a petitioner seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding from his

record if expungement is likely to accelerate the prisoner’s eligibility for parole.” Bostic v. Carlson,

884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing McCollum v. Miller, 695 F.2d 1044, 1047 (7th Cir.

1982)); see also Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1028–29 (9th Cir. 2004). A district court shall

“award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be

granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

 Petitioner alleges that his disciplinary violation was determined in a manner violative of his

right to due process. Petitioner further alleges that this blemish on his record will likely lengthen the

duration of his incarceration, being detrimental to his eligibility for parole. Viewing the facts

petitioner offers to support these allegations in the light most favorable to him, the court recognizes

Case 3:06-cv-04956-MHP Document 8 Filed 04/03/07 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

4

petitioner’s cognizable claim for habeas relief. Accordingly, respondents’ motion to dismiss is

denied. 

Finally, respondents’ reply to petitioner’s opposition to the motion in question was filed

without leave from the court. This being the case, the court sustains petitioner’s objection to that

reply and considers neither it nor petitioner’s subsequently filed reply in ruling as follows. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, respondents’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. The parties shall

appear before the court for a Status Conference for further scheduling on April 30, 2007, at

3:00p.m.and shall file a joint Status Conference Statement on or before April 23, 2007, setting forth

a proposed schedule for this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2007

_______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-04956-MHP Document 8 Filed 04/03/07 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

5

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all facts are taken from plaintiff’s complaint and memorandum in

support thereof.

ENDNOTE

Case 3:06-cv-04956-MHP Document 8 Filed 04/03/07 Page 5 of 5