Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01291/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01291-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Evans
Respondent
Jason David Yonai
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

1 Although petitioner says his rights also were violated by “Salinas Valley State Prison

Staff employees and prison officials, etc.,” he makes no allegations as to what they allegedly

did to violate his rights.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON DAVID YONAI,

Petitioner,

 vs.

S.V.S.P. Superintendent MS. EVANS, 

Respondent. /

No. C 07-1291 PJH (PR)

GRANT OF LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; ORDER OF

DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison,

has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also

seeks to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Venue is proper in this district because the petition is directed to a rules violation

conviction, for which petitioner lost good time. It thus goes to the execution of petitioner’s

sentence, the sort of habeas case which is best heard in the district of confinement. See

28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (district of

confinement best forum to review execution of sentence). 

BACKGROUND

This petition is directed to a conviction for a rules violation that petitioner received

while at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville.1 He was given a fifteen-month term in

the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) which he asserts caused him to lose “time.” It also

appears from his allegations that his conduct may have been referred to the district

Case 4:07-cv-01291-PJH Document 6 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 3
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

attorney for criminal prosecution.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district 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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland

v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed

by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify

all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall set forth in

summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of the

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient,

for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional

error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st

Cir. 1970). 

A habeas petition may be dismissed summarily "[i]f it plainly appears from the face

of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the

district court. . . ." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez,

908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). “Habeas petitions which appear on their face to be

legally insufficient are subject to summary dismissal.” Calderon v. United States Dist. Court

(Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 1996) (Schroeder, J., concurring). 

B. Legal Claims

In his first issue, petitioner contends that his due process rights were violated. In his

statement of facts in support of this very general contention, he asserts that several

correctional officers who wrote the rules violation report made false and inconsistent

statements in it. There is no constitutional right not to be given a rules violation report

which contains false or inconsistent information, or not to be convicted as a consequence

Case 4:07-cv-01291-PJH Document 6 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 3
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

of such a report. See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989) (prisoner has

no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct

which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest); Freeman v. Rideout, 808

F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986) (same); Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140-41 (7th Cir.

1984) (allegations of a fabricated charge fail to state a claim for violation of a constitutional

right). Petitioner’s allegations as to this issue are insufficient to “point to a ‘real possibility

of constitutional error.’” See Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine,

431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970).

In issues two and three petitioner asserts that he is being “falsely incarcerated”

because of the above-described defects in the rules violation report and that, for the same

reason, his false incarceration is cruel and unusual punishment. False imprisonment is a

state law claim which is not cognizable in a federal habeas case, see Estelle v. McGuire,

502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) (federal habeas relief unavailable for violations of state law or for

alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law), and petitioner’s continued

incarceration within the terms of his sentence cannot be cruel and unusual when petitioner

does not contend that the sentence itself violates the Eighth Amendment. In these issues,

as in issue one, petitioner has failed to point to a real possibility of constitutional error. The

petition will be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION 

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (document number 4) is GRANTED. 

Petitioner’s earlier motion (document 2) is DENIED as moot. The petition is summarily

DISMISSED. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.07\YONAI291.DSM United States District Judge 

Case 4:07-cv-01291-PJH Document 6 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 3