Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02620/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02620-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Rackley
Respondent
Kurt Washington
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 

KURT WASHINGTON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RONALD RACKLEY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-2620-MCE-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the several grounds. ECF No. 10. 

As discussed below, the court lacks jurisdiction over the petition and it must be dismissed. 

I. Background 

Petitioner is serving an indeterminate life sentence in California prison. ECF No. 1 at 1; 

ECF No. 10-2 at 8. He challenges a prison disciplinary determination that he had committed 

gang activity and the attendant forfeiture of 30-days’ good-time credit assessed against him. ECF 

No. 1 at 4; ECF No. 10-2 at 30. The parties do not dispute that petitioner’s “minimum eligible 

parole date” (“MEPD”) under California law had passed at the time the discipline was imposed. 

ECF No. 10-2 at 2; ECF No. 15. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-02620-MCE-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/13/16 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

II. The Motion to Dismiss 

Respondent argues, among other things, that this case lies outside of the court’s power to 

issue a writ of habeas corpus. Because that petition must be dismissed on this ground alone, the 

court need not address respondent’s additional arguments. 

In Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2015) and Blair v. Martel, 645 F.3d 1151 

(9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit concluded that federal courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of 

habeas corpus only in those cases where the petitioner’s success would mandate termination of 

his custody, acceleration of his future date of release from custody, or a reduction in the level of 

his custody, relying on language in the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Skinner v. Switzer, 562 

U.S. 521, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011). Success on the petition here would accomplish none of these 

results. Indeed, one petitioner in Nettles was situated similarly to petitioner here in all relevant 

respects: he was assessed a 30-day forfeiture of credits as a result of the discipline he sought to 

challenge, he was serving an indeterminate life sentence, and his MEPD had passed at the time 

the credit-forfeiture was imposed. 788 F.3d at 995-97. The Court of Appeals concluded that the 

effect of expungement of the petitioner’s disciplinary infraction on his release date was “too 

attenuated” to show that success in his petition would mandate his earlier release. Id. at 1003. 

The same reasoning applies here. As in Nettles, restoration of the lost credits would not impact 

petitioner’s MEPD because it had passed at the time the forfeiture was assessed. Id. at 1003-04. 

And, as in Nettles, the disciplinary finding petitioner challenges is “merely one factor the parole 

board considers to determine whether” petitioner will be suitable for parole; it is not 

determinative. Id. at 1003. Petitioner has provided the court with no reasoned basis for 

differentiating this case from Nettles, and the court is accordingly bound to apply that case here. 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation 

 Because this case falls outside the reach of the federal habeas corpus statute as interpreted 

by the Ninth Circuit in Nettles v. Grounds, the undersigned recommends that the petition be 

dismissed.1

 1

 Petitioner asks the court to allow him to “amend his petition to a § 1983 action.” 

Because § 1983 plaintiffs must pay a different (and considerably larger) filing fee to initiate suit, 

Case 2:14-cv-02620-MCE-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/13/16 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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue 

in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 

2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 

final order adverse to the applicant). 

DATED: January 12, 2016.

 

it is recommended that this action be dismissed. If petitioner wishes to pursue the claims he 

raises here in a civil rights case, he may file a new case as such. 

Case 2:14-cv-02620-MCE-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 3