Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00112/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00112-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfredo Hernandez Cruz
Petitioner
K. Mendoza-Powers
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 This information is derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Respondent’s answer to the petition, and 1

Petitioner’s traverse to Respondent’s answer.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 ALFREDO HERNANDEZ CRUZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00112 LJO HC

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. The parties having voluntarily consented to exercise of Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), by order dated June 26, 2006, this case was assigned

to the undersigned for all purposes, including entry of final judgment.

BACKGROUND1

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections pursuant to

a judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, following his conviction by jury

trial on July 18, 1986, of second degree murder in violation of California Penal Code § 187. See

Exhibit A, Respondent’s Answer (hereinafter “Answer”). Petitioner was sentenced to serve an

indeterminate term of fifteen years to life plus one year. Id. Petitioner is currently housed at Avenal

Case 1:06-cv-00112-LJO Document 18 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 7
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 cd 2

State Prison in Avenal, California. 

By this petition, Petitioner does not challenge his underlying conviction and sentence. Rather,

he challenges a disciplinary hearing held on April 5, 2004, in which Petitioner was found guilty of

attempted battery on a non-prisoner, a violation of California Code of Regulations, title 15, section

3005(c). See Exhibit C, Respondent’s Answer to Petition (hereinafter “Answer”). Specifically, on

December 18, 2003, while Petitioner was incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony, he

approached a health services staff member, confronted her, and attempted to kiss her. See Exhibit B,

Answer. 

Petitioner appealed the matter administratively. Petitioner claimed the hearing officer had

denied his request to confront the complaining staff member. On March 2, 2004, the appeal was

granted and the hearing officer was ordered to re-issue the Rules Violation Report (“RVR”), re-hear

the matter, and arrange to have the complainant available for questioning by Petitioner. See Exhibit

F, Answer. 

On April 5, 2004, a second disciplinary hearing was held based on the re-issued RVR.

Petitioner was found guilty and assessed a 150-day credit forfeiture. See Exhibits D and G, Answer.

He was also referred to the Institutional Classification Committee (“ICC”) for a program review, a

term in the Secured Housing Unit (“SHU”), and referral to another institution. Id. 

On April 29, 2004, Petitioner appeared before the ICC for a SHU term review. See Exhibit

G, Answer. Petitioner was assessed a five-month term in the SHU. Id. Subsequently, Petitioner was

transferred to Avenal State Prison and placed in general population. See Exhibit H, Answer. 

Petitioner then lodged an administrative appeal of the SHU term. On September 24, 2004, the

appeal was denied at the Director’s level. See Exhibit I, Answer. The SHU term was deemed

justified. Id.

On April 6, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Kings County

Superior Court. See Exhibit J, Answer. On April 8, 2005, the petition was denied. See Exhibit C,

Petition. The court determined there was ample evidence supporting the guilty finding. Id.

On October 3, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California

Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District (“5 DCA”). See Exhibit K, Answer. On October 20, th

Case 1:06-cv-00112-LJO Document 18 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 7
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 cd 3

2005, the appeal was summarily denied. See Exhibit B, Petition. 

On November 17, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for review before the California Supreme

Court. See Exhibit K, Answer. On January 4, 2006, the petition was summarily denied. See Exhibit

A, Petition.

On February 2, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition in this Court.

Petitioner claims the California Department of Corrections (“CDC”) erred in assessing the SHU

term. He claims the CDC erroneously interpreted state regulations and re-categorized the offense he

was found guilty of, attempted battery, to a different offense, attempted assault. He also claims the

evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of attempted battery.

On May 25, 2006, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. Respondent contends

Petitioner has failed to establish any grounds for federal habeas corpus relief. He further argues

Petitioner’s claims are without merit since there was substantial evidence to support the finding of

guilt. On July 11, 2006, Petitioner filed a traverse to Respondent’s answer.

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody pursuant

to a judgment of a state court 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. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362,

375 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by the U.S.

Constitution. Petitioner was housed at Avenal State Prison when the instant petition was filed and

Avenal State Prison is located within the jurisdiction of this Court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a), 2241(d). If

a constitutional violation has resulted in the loss of time credits, such violation affects the duration of

a sentence, and the violation may be remedied by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Young

v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9 Cir. 1990). th

II. Standard of Review

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).

Case 1:06-cv-00112-LJO Document 18 Filed 02/02/07 Page 3 of 7
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 cd 4

The AEDPA altered the standard of review that a federal habeas court must apply with

respect to a state prisoner’s claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court. Williams v.

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000). Under the AEDPA, an application for writ of habeas corpus will not be

granted unless the adjudication of the claim “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved

an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court

of the United States;” or “resulted in a decision that 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);

Lockyer v. Andrade, 123 S.Ct. 1166 (2003), disapproving the Ninth Circuit’s approach in Van Tran

v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143 (9 Cir. 2000); Williams, 529 U.S. 362. “A federal habeas court may not th

issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state

court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Lockyer, 123 S.Ct.

at 1175 (citations omitted). “Rather, that application must be objectively unreasonable.” Id. (citations

omitted). 

While habeas corpus relief is an important instrument to assure that individuals are

constitutionally protected, Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887 (1983); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S.

286, 290 (1969), direct review of a criminal conviction is the primary method for a petitioner to

challenge that conviction. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 633 (1993). In addition, the state

court’s factual determinations must be presumed correct, and the federal court must accept all factual

findings made by the state court unless the petitioner can rebut “the presumption of correctness by

clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995);

Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1388 (9 Cir. 1997). th

III. Review of Petition

A. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim

Petitioner first claims the CDC misinterpreted state regulations and mischaracterized his

offense of attempted battery to qualify as a “SHU-able” offense. Respondent correctly argues that

this claim does not present a federal issue. 

Petitioner’s claim centers on the CDC’s interpretation of a state regulation. Because the issue

is one of state law, the claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review. Estelle v. McGuire, 502

Case 1:06-cv-00112-LJO Document 18 Filed 02/02/07 Page 4 of 7
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 cd 5

U.S. 62, 67, (1991) ("We have stated many times that 'federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for

errors of state law.' "), quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Gilmore v. Taylor, 508

U.S. 333, 348-49 (1993) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“mere error of state law, one that does not rise

to the level of a constitutional violation, may not be corrected on federal habeas”); Tinsley v. Borg,

895 F.2d 520, 530 (9 Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1091 (1991) (“incorrect” evidentiary rulings th

are not the basis for federal habeas relief); Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.),

cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942 (1989) (Federal courts are bound by state court rulings on questions of

state law).

B. Mootness

Respondent further argues the petition is moot because Petitioner has already served his 5-

month SHU term and is now back in general population. 

The case or controversy requirement of Article III of the Federal Constitution deprives the

Court of jurisdiction to hear moot cases. Iron Arrow Honor Soc’y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 104

S.Ct. 373, 374-75 (1983); NAACP., Western Region v. City of Richmond, 743 F.2d 1346, 1352 (9th

Cir. 1984). A case becomes moot if the “the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack

a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S.Ct. 1181,

1183 (1984). The Federal Court is “without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights

of the litigants before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 406 (1971)

per curiam, quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Hayworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 463-464

(1937). 

In this case, Petitioner challenges the assessment of a 5-month SHU term. As stated by

Respondent, Petitioner has long since completed this 5-month term. Since a favorable ruling for

Petitioner in this case would have no effect on his custody or the length of his confinement, the case

is now moot and the petition should be dismissed.

C. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Petitioner contends he was wrongly found guilty of attempted battery because the evidence

was insufficient to support the finding.

Prisoners cannot be entirely deprived of their constitutional rights, but their rights may be

Case 1:06-cv-00112-LJO Document 18 Filed 02/02/07 Page 5 of 7
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 cd 6

diminished by the needs and objectives of the institutional environment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

U.S. 539, 555 (1974). Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, so a

prisoner is not afforded the full panoply of rights in such proceedings. Id. at 556. Thus, a prisoner’s

due process rights are moderated by the “legitimate institutional needs” of a prison. Bostic v.

Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), citing Superintendent, etc. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-

455 (1984).

However, when a prison disciplinary proceeding may result in the loss of good time credits,

due process requires that the prisoner receive: (1) advance written notice of at least 24 hours 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. Hill, 472 U.S.

at 454; Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-567. In addition, due process requires that the decision be supported

by “some evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, citing United States ex rel. Vatauer v. Commissioner of

Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106 (1927) 

Petitioner does not argue that he was deprived of his procedural due process rights; he argues

only that the decision was not supported by the evidence. A review of the RVR, the administrative

appeals, and the state court decisions demonstrates that the decision was indeed supported by ample

evidence.

Petitioner was charged with attempted battery on a health services employee. On

December 18, 2003, Petitioner was assigned to assist health services staff member D. Johnson in

obtaining medical supplies in the Gym Medical Supply Annex at California Men’s Colony. See

Exhibit B, Answer. While Johnson was looking over paperwork, Petitioner approached her, leaned

toward her, and attempted to kiss her. Id. She responded by throwing her arms in an upward motion

to block his attempt and succeeded in pushing him away. Id. She kept flailing her arms to keep him

away and yelled at him to “get away.” Id. In her statement, she admitted being afraid for her safety

due to Petitioner’s sudden movements. Id. After she yelled and fought Petitioner back, Petitioner

responded by running out of the immediate area to the outside of the building. Id. Approximately ten

minutes later as she exited the room, Petitioner again confronted her and stated, “You’ve got good

Case 1:06-cv-00112-LJO Document 18 Filed 02/02/07 Page 6 of 7
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 cd 7

reflexes.” Id. She later prepared a serious RVR regarding the incident. 

When contacted by investigating staff, Petitioner admitted he had approached Johnson in the

medical supply annex. Id. He admitted that he leaned toward Johnson coming within one foot of her

face and stated, “Merry Christmas.” Id. Petitioner stated he was joking but did not attempt to kiss

her. Id. He stated she responded to his actions by waving her arms in front of him. Id. Petitioner

stated he then brought his own fists up and motioned side-to-side jokingly. Id. He admitted he

“stepped over the line.” Id.

Based on the complainant’s account of the events and Petitioner’s own admissions, it is clear

there was ample evidence supporting the finding of guilt. The state court adjudication of Petitioner’s

claims did not result in a decision that was contrary to clearly established Federal law or a decision

that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d). Therefore, the petition must be denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00112-LJO Document 18 Filed 02/02/07 Page 7 of 7