Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04837/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04837-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeff Beard
Respondent
Robert Trevino
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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT TREVINO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFF BEARD,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-04837-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Robert Trevino, a prisoner housed at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se action

seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Trevino asserts that his right to 

due process was violated during prison disciplinary proceedings for misconduct that allegedly 

occurred on July 15, 2011. Docket No. 21-1 at 2.

At a disciplinary hearing on March 21, 2012, Mr. Trevino was found guilty of “assault on 

an inmate with weapon capable of causing serious bodily injury.” Docket No. 21-1 at 6. The 

discipline imposed consisted of a 12-month term in the security housing unit (SHU), and that SHU 

term ended on or about July 15, 2012. Docket No. 1-3 at 8; Docket No. 2-8 at 39 (maximum 

release date for SHU term was July 15, 2012). Mr. Trevino did not lose any time credits as a 

result of being found guilty. Mr. Trevino is currently in custody serving a sentence of 18 years to 

life in prison. See Docket No. 21-1 at 52

Respondent moved to dismiss this action on the grounds that Mr. Trevino failed to exhaust 

state court remedies and failed to comply with the habeas statute of limitations. Mr. Trevino 

opposed the motion. After the parties’ briefs were filed, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in

Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), which cast doubt on whether the

Court had jurisdiction to entertain this habeas action challenging a disciplinary decision. The

Case 3:15-cv-04837-EMC Document 34 Filed 11/23/16 Page 1 of 3
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

For the Northern District of California

Court invited the parties to file briefs to provide their views on whether Nettles required dismissal 

of this action. (Docket No. 31.) Respondent and Mr. Trevino both filed briefs. (See Docket Nos. 

32 and 33.) Having reviewed Nettles and the parties’ briefs, the Court concludes that Nettles

requires dismissal of this action. 

Nettles held that a prisoner’s claim which, if successful, will not necessarily lead to 

immediate or speedier release from custody falls outside the “core of habeas corpus” and must be 

pursued (if at all) in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than in a habeas action. 

Nettles, 830 F.3d at 927-28. Nettles makes it clear that federal habeas relief is not available under 

the circumstances present in Mr. Trevino’s case. 

Here, if Mr. Trevino succeeds on his claim that his right to due process was violated during 

the disciplinary proceedings, he will not necessarily obtain an immediate or speedier release from 

custody. The only discipline imposed was a SHU term, and that SHU term expired in 2012. 

Success on his due process claim could not lead to his release from the already-concluded SHU 

term.

1

 Mr. Trevino also has not shown that having served a SHU term necessarily affects his 

release date from prison on his indeterminate life term. That is, if he prevails on his claim that the 

evidence was insufficient to support the disciplinary decision, it does not necessarily follow that 

he will be released from prison on a date sooner than otherwise would occur. He must be found 

suitable for parole before his parole date will be set, and that has not yet occurred. A rule 

violation “is merely one of the factors shedding light” on the parole suitability decision for an 

inmate. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935 (“presence of a disciplinary infraction does not compel the 

denial of parole, nor does an absence of an infraction compel the grant of parole”). Similarly, if 

Mr. Trevino prevails on his due process claim and that somehow leads to his next parole-

 

1

The en banc majority decision in Nettles did not address whether habeas jurisdiction would exist 

to seek release from a SHU term if the prisoner was still serving that term. The concurrence in 

Nettles suggests that habeas jurisdiction would exist when a prisoner seeks a reduction in the level 

of custody, as might occur when one seeks release from the SHU. See Nettles, 830 F.3d at 937-38 

(Hurwitz, J., concurring) (Supreme Court’s dicta suggests that habeas relief “is limited to claims 

that would necessarily spell speedier release, accelerate future release from custody, or reduce the 

level of custody.”) Regardless of whether habeas is available for a prisoner seeking a reduction in 

the level of custody, as would occur when a prisoner files a habeas petition seeking his release 

from the SHU, those are not Mr. Trevino’s facts: his SHU term had ended long before he filed his 

federal habeas petition. 

Case 3:15-cv-04837-EMC Document 34 Filed 11/23/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

suitability hearing being advanced to a date sooner than otherwise would occur, it does not 

necessarily follow that he will be released from prison on a date sooner than otherwise would 

occur because he must first be found suitable for parole before his parole date will be set. Under 

Nettles, Mr. Trevino’s only potential recourse in federal court is to file a section 1983 complaint. 

In an appropriate case, a habeas petition may be construed as a section 1983 complaint. 

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971); see Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935-36. Although the 

court may construe a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint, it is not required to do so. Here, 

there is a compelling reason not to construe the petition to be a section 1983 complaint: Mr. 

Trevino already has a section 1983 action pending. In Trevino v. Dotson, No. 15-cv-5373 PJH, 

Mr. Trevino’s amended complaint under section 1983 asserts, among other claims, that his 

constitutional rights were violated in connection with the disciplinary write-up for the July 15, 

2011 incident. Service of process was ordered in Case No. 15-cv-5373 PJH on September 22, 

2016. Due to the existence of that action, construing the habeas petition to be a section 1983 

complaint is unnecessary and would expose Mr. Trevino to an unnecessary filing fee for a second 

civil rights action. 

This action for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to Mr. Trevino 

pursuing his claims in the pending section 1983 action. This Court is not making a decision on the 

merit of Mr. Trevino’s due process claim, but only determining that a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus is the wrong sort of case in which to assert that claim. Because Nettles bars the habeas 

action entirely, the court need not decide whether Mr. Trevino exhausted state court remedies and 

complied with the habeas statute of limitations and therefore DENIES as moot Respondent’s 

motion to dismiss the action as unexhausted and untimely. (Docket No. 21.)

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04837-EMC Document 34 Filed 11/23/16 Page 3 of 3