Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02005/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02005-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Connie Gipson
Respondent
Roberto Herrera
Petitioner

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 ROBERTO HERRERA,

Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON,

Respondent.

 /

1:12-CV-02005 GSA HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

BACKGROUND1

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation confined at Corcoran State Prison. Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary hearing

held on September 25, 2012, in which he was found guilty of promoting gang activity. Petitioner

states he has not administratively appealed the decision, nor has he sought relief in the state courts.

On December 10, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition in this Court. He 

This information is taken from the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

1

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:12-cv-02005-GSA Document 5 Filed 01/03/13 Page 1 of 4
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

contends he was found guilty in violation of his due process rights.

DISCUSSION

I. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk

to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9

th

Cir.2001).

II. Failure to State a Claim

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. His claims for relief arise out of a disciplinary hearing held at Corcoran State Prison

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

As previously stated, Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary hearing in which he was

found guilty of promoting gang activity. Petitioner states he was assessed 90 days loss of special

purchase and annual package privileges, 30 days loss of entertainment privileges, and 15 days loss of

yard; however, it appears the hearing did not result in the loss of any time credits. Insofar as any

relief this Court could grant with respect to the hearing would not affect the duration of Petitioner’s

sentence, any claim concerning that hearing is not cognizable in a federal habeas action. Therefore,

the petition should be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim.

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:12-cv-02005-GSA Document 5 Filed 01/03/13 Page 2 of 4
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

III. Exhaustion

A petitioner who is in state custody seeking a writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state

judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state

court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional

deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518

(1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9 Cir. 1988). th

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court with a

full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Duncan v.

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88

F.3d 828, 829 (9 Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full th

and fair opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the

claim's factual and legal basis. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365 (legal basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504

U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis). 

Here, Petitioner states he has not sought relief administratively or in the state courts. 

Therefore, the petition is unexhausted and must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

IV. Certificate of Appealability

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue

a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court 

of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 3

Case 1:12-cv-02005-GSA Document 5 Filed 01/03/13 Page 3 of 4
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

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

“if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at

338.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a

certificate of appealability.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to

state a cognizable claim and failure to exhaust state remedies; 

2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and terminate the case; and

3) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 2, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 4

Case 1:12-cv-02005-GSA Document 5 Filed 01/03/13 Page 4 of 4