Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00457/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00457-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Panfilo Salinas-Alvarado
Petitioner
Taft Correctional Institution
Defendant
Jeff Wrigley
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PANFILO SALINAS-ALVARADO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF WRIGLEY, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1:07-CV-00457 OWW DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

CONSTRUING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AS ANSWER TO PETITION AND

RECOMMENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS BE DENIED

[Doc. 13]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

BACKGROUND

In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges the finding of a prison disciplinary violation

following an incident which occurred on May 16, 2006. 

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on August 17, 2007. Petitioner did not

file a response. 

Pursuant to the Court’s order of May 3, 2007, the Court directed Respondent to file an

“ANSWER” addressing the merits of the petition. (Court Doc. 6.) Respondent has essentially

filed an answer addressing the merits, however, it is styled and was docketed as a “motion to

dismiss” the petition. (See Court Doc. 6.) Therefore, the Court construes Respondent’s motion

to dismiss as an answer to the petition.

////

Case 1:07-cv-00457-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 5
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

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’s claims for relief arise out of a disciplinary

hearing. Petitioner is confined at the Taft Correctional Institution in Taft, California, which 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. Review of Petition

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

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). 

Case 1:07-cv-00457-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Other than challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Petitioner contests only that he

was not given the opportunity to present the testimony of fellow inmate Angel Moreno Vallejo. 

(Petition, at 3b-3c.) Petitioner submits a declaration by inmate Vallejo, in which he declares that

“[o]n May 16, 2006, at approximate [sic] 10:35 am, I was in my assigned cubicle awaiting for the

count with my cellmate Panfilo Salinas. [¶] That during the count he started to scratch his inner

thigh of the right leg. [¶] That he is been [sic] scratching that part of his body for an extended

period of time due to a rash. [¶] At no time I observed inmate Salinas to expose or develop any

activity in relation to his penis or malicious observance towards the female officers during the

count time on May 6, 2006. [¶] At all time during the count on May 6, 2006, inmate Salinas and

me were involved in an obsolete conversation of the prison activities. As stated above, he was

scratching for about 30 seconds during count.” (Declaration of Angel Moreno Vallejo, Exhibit

A, attached to Petition.) During the disciplinary hearing on June 1, 2006, Petitioner did not

request the attendance of any witnesses. (Discipline Hearing Officer Report, unenumerated

attachment to Petition, at p. 1 of 3.) Petitioner denied the charges stating, “I was just scratching. 

I wasn’t doing anything wrong.” (Id.) By Petitioner’s own admission, he did not request that

inmate Vallejo be present at the hearing, and he only “implicitly” requested inmate Vallejo’s

testimony during the hearing by stating that he could corroborate his version of the events. (See

Petition, at p.3b-3c.) It is not disputed that Petitioner was given advance written notice of the

hearing on May 16, 2006 (id), and it was incumbent upon Petitioner to explicitly request the

attendance of any and all witnesses, including inmate Vallejo, at his disciplinary hearing. 

Moreover, as Respondent submits, Petitioner does not explain why inmate Vallejo could not

have submitted then the statement offered now in support of his petition. 

The evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing constituted “some” evidence

sufficient to satisfy the due process requirement of Hill. The Disciplinary Hearing Officer

(DHO), relied on the incident report written by Female Officer D. Allison which stated “that on

05-16-2006 at 1035, she was conducting a standing count in A2B. While walking by your

cubicle, she observed you with an obvious erect penis under your pants. You had your erect

penis in your right hand rubbing it back and forth while making eye contact with her. You did

Case 1:07-cv-00457-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 10/01/07 Page 3 of 5
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

not stop rubbing your penis with your right hand. You were rubbing your penis in a sexual

manner.” (Discipline Hearing Officer Report, unenumerated attachment to petition, at p. 2.) 

Next, the DHO cited from Female Officer Etheredge’s report which stated “on 05-16-2006 at

approximately 1035, she was assisting Officer Allison with count. She observed you letting go

of your clothed, erect penis after Officer Allison passed by your cubicle then re-grab your clothed

erect penis again as you made eye contact with Officer Etheredge as she was passing your

cubicle.” (Id.) The DHO noted and considered Petitioner’s statement that he did not do anything

wrong. (Id.) The DHO concluded based on the greater weight of the evidence that Petitioner

was guilty of engaging in sexual acts. (Id.) Specifically, the DHO noted that staff members

clearly observed Petitioner rubbing his penis as the female officers walked by, making direct eye

contact with the officers, and he had an obvious erection. (Id.) The DHO considered Petitioner’s

statement that he was simply scratching his inner thigh area which was later confirmed by

medical to be an infection; however, the DHO concluded that “the greater weight of the evidence

support[ed] the finding that you committed the prohibited act of Engaging in Sexual Acts with

another, code 205.” (Id.) Specifically, the DHO stated, “Although your medical condition was

validated by medical, this does not explain why you had an erection, why you were only doing it

while looking at the female officers, and why you were rubbing your penis and not your leg. 

Because of this, your denial has no credibility.” (Id.) In ascertaining whether the standard of

“some evidence” has been satisfied this Court does not independently assess the credibility of the

witnesses or weigh the evidence; rather, the only “relevant question is whether there is any

evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.” Hill,

472 U.S. at 455-456. Based on the foregoing, there is “some evidence” to support the finding of

guilt, and Petitioner’s claim should be denied.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED; and

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

This Findings and Recommendations is submitted to the assigned United States District

Case 1:07-cv-00457-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 10/01/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 Recommendations.” 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 28, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00457-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 10/01/07 Page 5 of 5