Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02847/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02847-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Arnold
Respondent
James Davelle Sanders
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES DAVELLE SANDERS,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD,

Respondent.

No. 2: 14-cv-2847 KJN P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner has also 

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (ECF No. 3.) For the following reasons, the 

petition is dismissed with leave to amend. See Rule 4, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 

Cases (if it appears from petition that petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court may dismiss the 

petition.) 

Petitioner’s Claims

In this action, petitioner seeks the expungement of his prison disciplinary record. The 

background to this request follows herein.

Petitioner alleges that on June 9, 2011, he had his initial parole suitability hearing. (ECF 

No. 1 at 1.) Petitioner alleges that he was found unsuitable for parole largely based on a prison 

disciplinary conviction for cell phone possession and his cumulative disciplinary record. (Id.) 

Case 2:14-cv-02847-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Petitioner was denied parole for five years. (Id.) Petitioner alleges that after his June 2011 parole 

suitability hearing, he received two more prison disciplinary convictions for cell phone 

possession. (Id. at 1-2.) 

Petitioner requests expungement of his entire prison disciplinary record, which includes 9 

counseling chronos and five rules violation convictions, including his three convictions for cell 

phone possession. (Id. at 2-3.) Petitioner alleges that expungement of his prison disciplinary 

record would make it more likely that he would be found suitable for parole and result in him 

receiving an accelerated suitability hearing. (Id.)

Attached as an exhibit to petitioner’s petition is a copy of the transcript of the June 9, 

2011 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) finding petitioner unsuitable for parole. 

The BPH found petitioner unsuitable on the following grounds.

The BPH found that petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a 

threat to public safety if released from prison. (Id. at 13.) In support of this finding, the BPH 

cited petitioner’s “institutional misconduct,” i.e, prison disciplinary record, and commitment 

offense. (Id. at 13-14.) The BPH stated that it gave greater weight to petitioner’s institutional 

misconduct based on the passage of time from the commitment offense. (Id. at 14.)

Regarding the commitment offense, the BPH found that it was carried out in a 

dispassionate and calculated manner and in a manner demonstrating an exceptionally callous 

disregard for human suffering. (Id.) The BPH also noted petitioner’s attitude toward the crime, 

which reflected some minimization. (Id. at 16.) The BPH was concerned that petitioner did not 

“use the words of responsibility but you’re qualifying comments tend to mitigate your overall 

actions.” (Id. at 16-17.) Regarding petitioner’s insight into the offense, the BPH found that 

petitioner had not yet come to terms with the totality of the events. (Id. at 17.) The BPH noted 

that the psychological report was not totally supportive of release. (Id.) The BPH also expressed 

concern with the level of petitioner’s remorse. (Id. at 19.) 

The BPH then discussed petitioner’s prison disciplinary record, noting his three (at that 

time) prison disciplinary convictions, including his conviction for cell phone possession, and nine 

counseling chronos. (Id. at 18-19.) 

Case 2:14-cv-02847-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/04/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Discussion

Petitioner does not allege the grounds on which he is attacking his prison disciplinary 

convictions and counseling chronos. In other words, petitioner does not set forth any alleged 

constitutional violations in connection with his disciplinary convictions and counseling chronos. 

The court is not authorized to simply order the expungement of disciplinary convictions and 

counseling chronos without any finding of a constitutional violation.

Moreover, to the extent petitioner challenges multiple prison disciplinary convictions, his 

claims should be raised in separate habeas petitions. See Rule 2 (e), Federal Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases (a petitioner seeking relief from more than one judgment must file separate 

petitions covering each judgment).1

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with leave to file an amended petition. In the 

amended petition, petitioner may challenge one prison disciplinary conviction. The amended 

petition must allege the grounds on which petitioner challenges the at-issue disciplinary 

conviction. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The petition is dismissed with thirty days to file an amended petition in accordance 

with this order;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the form for a habeas corpus 

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Dated: February 4, 2015

San2847.ord

 

1

 In Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024, 1-28-29 (9th Cir. 2004), the Ninth Circuit acknowledged, 

based on its own precedent, that habeas jurisdiction was available if a petitioner sought 

expungement of a disciplinary finding from his record if expungement was likely to accelerate the 

prisoner’s eligibility for parole. The undersigned would request a response from respondent 

before determining whether habeas corpus jurisdiction exists in this action. 

Case 2:14-cv-02847-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/04/15 Page 3 of 3