Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04196/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04196-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David A. Nwaonumah
Petitioner
M. E. Spearman
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID A. NWAONUMAH,

Petitioner,

v.

M. E. SPEARMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-04196-WHO (PR)

ORDER REOPENING ACTION

The Court construes habeas petitioner David Nwaonumah’s request for a certificate 

of appealability (Dkt. No. 17) also as a motion for reconsideration. Thus construed, it is 

GRANTED. The action is REOPENED. The Clerk shall amend the docket accordingly. 

The judgment (Dkt. No. 16) and the order of dismissal (Dkt. No. 15) are VACATED. The 

dismissed petition (Dkt. No. 1) is reinstated as the operative pleading. 

Nwaonumah, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, alleges that his original release date 

was July 31, 2019. (Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 14, at 1.) It was changed to 

October 15, 2019, an extension of 90 days, after he received a “write up” for an infraction 

he committed at Avenal State Prison. (Id.) Those 90 days would be restored if 

Nwaonumah was “disciplinary free for 6 months.” (Id.) However, before those 6 months 

had passed, his jailors at Soledad State Prison found him guilty in 2013 of refusing to 

follow orders, which resulted in the forfeiture of 30 days of time credits. (Id. at 1-2.) 

Case 3:15-cv-04196-WHO Document 18 Filed 11/01/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Though those 30 days were restored, the disciplinary decision ended the possibility of 

having the 90 days he lost at Avenal restored. (Id. at 2.) His claim that respondent 

violated his right to due process when it found him guilty of a rules violation at Soledad 

using the “some evidence” standard is therefore viable. 

That is the sole habeas issue in this case. If it were not for the Avenal forfeiture 

with the promise of credit restoration, no habeas action would lie. The Soledad credits 

were restored and the length of his sentence was not affected. Also, Nwaonumah cannot 

obtain habeas relief for the Soledad decision simply because the unexpunged Soledad 

disciplinary decision might affect his parole eligibility status. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 

922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Parole decisions are based on many factors, prison 

disciplinary decisions being just one of them. Id. at 935. A favorable habeas decision in 

such circumstances does not speed release, and therefore such claims must be brought, if at 

all, through a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. 

This Court requires further briefing whether Nwaonumah is entitled to habeas relief 

on his claim. Within 60 days from the date of this order, respondent shall file either a 

dispositive motion or an answer to the petition. Respondent shall address the effect of 

Nettles, cited above. Nwaonumah may file an opposition or traverse within 30 days after 

the motion or answer is filed. If Nwaonumah files an opposition to a dispositive motion, 

respondent may file a reply 15 days thereafter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2016

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04196-WHO Document 18 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 2