Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01982/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01982-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Apker
Respondent
Olaf Peter Juda
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Olaf Peter Juda, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Craig Apker, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1982-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(“Petition”) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 27, 2009, the Magistrate Judge

to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”)

recommending that the Petition be denied. Doc. #24. Petitioner filed objections to the R &

R on March 9, 2009. Doc. #27.

Standard of Review

When reviewing an R & R issued by a Magistrate Judge, this Court “may accept,

reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

[M]agistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that the district judge must review the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not

otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(emphasis in original). Because Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R & R,

Case 2:07-cv-01982-JAT Document 28 Filed 05/11/09 Page 1 of 6
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

 Petitioner objects that the R & R was inaccurate in stating that he demonstrated the

FM transmitter on Lieutenant Hammond’s computer. (Doc. #27, p. 2.) Petitioner argues that

he demonstrated it on Lieutenant Hammond’s radio. Id. After reviewing the record, it

appears the Magistrate Judge misstated this fact; the demonstration was performed on a radio

and not a computer. This Court modifies the factual summary in the R & R on this point.

Further, Petitioner objects to another fact summarized in the R & R, but it appears Petitioner

is arguing the truthfulness of the fact and not the accuracy of the fact. Accordingly, this

Court does not alter the R & R’s factual summary on this point, but addresses that objection

in the discussion section.

- 2 -

this Court will review the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations on Petitioner’s Petition de

novo.

Pages 1 through 5 of the R & R recite the factual and procedural history of this case.

R & R at 1-5. After reviewing the record, the R & R, and Petitioner’s objections, this Court

finds Petitioner was correct in his objection to a minor inaccuracy pertaining to the facts and

this Court modifies the discussion of the facts, as to that inaccuracy.1

 The Petitioner does not

object to the remainder of the factual and procedural history, and thus the Court hereby

accepts it. Next, pages 5-6 of the R & R lay out the law governing the due process rights of

prisoners when losing good conduct time credits (“good time credits”). Id. at 5-6. This

discussion correctly summarizes the law governing what must occur for a federal court to

consider the merits of a habeas claim for the loss of good time credits arising under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, and the Court hereby accepts and adopts this legal framework.

Discussion

Petitioner objects to the R & R on two grounds: (1) that the incident was properly

handled in an informal manner; and (2) that prison officials violated the Code of Federal

Regulations Title 28 sections 541.14 and 541.15. (Objection to R & R, Doc. #27, p. 2.)

Petitioner also requests an evidentiary hearing because he alleges that there are facts in

dispute. (Doc. #27, p. 2-3, 6.)

I. Ground 1: Informal Resolution

As recounted in the R & R, Petitioner argued that Lieutenant Hammond resolved the

issue informally, and thus the subsequent disciplinary hearing was invalid under 28 U.S.C.

Case 2:07-cv-01982-JAT Document 28 Filed 05/11/09 Page 2 of 6
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 -

§ 541.14. R & R at 7-8. The Magistrate Judge found Petitioner was charged with a Code

199 violation, which under 28 U.S.C. § 541.14 is an offense in the Greatest or High Severity

Category, and cannot be resolved informally. Id. at 8. Petitioner does not dispute that he was

charged with a series Code 100 infraction, and that under 28 U.S.C. § 541.14 such an

infraction cannot be resolved informally. (Doc. #24, p. 2.) However, he argues that because

Curtis Logan, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”), found him guilty of a reduced Code

305 infraction, which could be resolved informally, his punishment should be limited to the

initial confiscation of the FM transmitter by Lieutenant Hammond. (Doc. #27, p. 2.)

The Code of Federal Regulations 28 U.S.C. § 541.14 provides that “[e]xcept for

prohibited acts in the Greatest or High Severity Category, the Lieutenant may informally

dispose of the Incident Report or forward the Incident Report for investigation consistent

with this section.” (emphasis added). The resolution of the matter is within the discretion of

the Lieutenant. Here, the Lieutenant at no time disposed of the Incident Report, and

therefore the matter was not resolved informally. Further, there is no requirement that it had

to be resolved informally. Therefore, this Court denies relief on Petitioner’s Ground One.

A. Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner next argues that there are two important factual errors in the R & R and

based on these “factual disputes” he requests an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. #27, p. 2-3, 6.)

First, Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s factual account in the R & R that he

demonstrated the operation of the FM transmitter on Lieutenant Hammond’s computer. (Id.)

at 2. He argues this demonstration was performed on the Lieutenant’s radio. (Id.) After

reviewing the R & R’s cite to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer’s Report (“Report”) it is clear

that the R & R misstated the fact on record. The Report states the demonstration performed

was on Lieutenant Hammond’s radio, and the Court hereby accepts that fact. Accordingly,

this inaccuracy does not warrant an evidentiary hearing.

Second, Petitioner objects to the statement made in Curtis Logan’s Declaration that

“[a] signal jammer had never been found at TCI [Taft Correctional Institute] before.” (Doc.

Case 2:07-cv-01982-JAT Document 28 Filed 05/11/09 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 -

#24, p. 2-3.) Here, Petitioner argues an evidentiary hearing is necessary because this fact is

in “dispute.”

Petitioner argues that a FM transmitter had been found at Taft Correctional Institute

(“TCI”). (Doc. #24, p. 2-3.) Specifically, Petitioner argues inmates who worked for

maintenance services installed these FM transmitters in every television set at TCI. (Id. at

3.) Courts defers to the disciplinary committee’s factual findings unless “they are clearly

unsupported.” Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner has not

alleged that there is evidence of any other prisoners being caught with this type of FM

transmitter. Therefore, there is no evidence that this factual finding is clearly unsupported.

Additionally, even if Petitioner could prove this fact, it would not change the outcome

of this case. The DHO found Petitioner was in “possession of anything not authorized” in

violation of Code 305. Therefore, the DHO did not rely on the “fact” that the signal jammer

had never been found at TCI before as a basis for his decision. Further, Petitioner never

argues he was authorized to possess the transmitter. Thus, even if the DHO had relied on

this fact, even if Petitioner could prove that other inmates also possessed an unauthorized

item, such proof would not be a basis for this Court to find the disciplinary committees’s

factual findings regarding Petitioner to be clearly unsupported. 

When the “record conclusively shows that petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, no evidentiary hearing [is] required.” See Anderson v. United

States, 898 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir. 1980). On this record, even if Petitioner’s “disputed” facts

were found in Petitioner’s favor, Petitioner would not be entitled to relief. Accordingly, this

Court denies Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing.

II. Ground 2: Code of Federal Regulation Violations

Petitioner argues that TCI officials violated 28 C.F.R. §§ 541.14 and 541.15 during

this disciplinary action, and thus violated his due process. (Doc. #27, p. 3-5.) Petitioner has

a right to procedures which meet minimum constitutional due process standards before he

is deprived of a substantive liberty interest. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 554-58

Case 2:07-cv-01982-JAT Document 28 Filed 05/11/09 Page 4 of 6
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

 However, the Court does not adopt the specific five procedural safeguards listed in

the R & R. Having read Wolff, this Court finds that the safeguards are more flexible than the

R & R suggests. For example, Wolff states that the Petitioner is entitled to staff assistance

only if he is illiterate or if the issues are complex. 418 U.S. at 570. Because Petitioner herein

received staff assistance, it is not an issue in this case; but this Court disagrees with the

summary in the R & R that suggests such assistance is always required. R & R at 6; see

Cassady v. McFarland, 779 F.2d 1426, 1428 (9th Cir. 1985) (“In Wolff, the Supreme Court

found that the Due Process Clause imposed three requirements that prison officials must meet

before the revocation of good-time credits....”)

- 5 -

(1976). Due process requires the satisfaction of procedural safeguards in a disciplinary

hearing in which a prisoner may be deprived of good time credits. See id. at 563-70.

The Magistrate Judge found in the R & R that the Government met these procedural

safeguards and that substantial evidence exists to support the DHO’s decision. R & R at 6-7.

Therefore, the Magistrate Judge found Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated and

recommended the denial of Petitioner’s request for reinstatement of his good time credits.

Id. at 7. After reviewing the record this Court agrees with the R & R.2

 Therefore, the Court

adopts the R & R on this point, and denies Petitioner’s request for reinstatement of his good

time credits.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the R & R (Doc. #24) is accepted to the extent indicated

above, the objections (Doc. #27) are overruled to the extent indicated above, the Petition is

denied, with prejudice, and the Clerk of the court shall enter judgment accordingly.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01982-JAT Document 28 Filed 05/11/09 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that review of the record revealed there was a

typographical error on the certificate of service of Respondent’s Answer. (Doc. #16 at 9.)

The Court does not find that a typographical error justifies striking an answer, thus to the

extent Petitioner seeks this remedy, it is denied. However, the Clerk of the Court shall mail

a copy of Respondent’s Answer (Doc. #16) to Petitioner with a copy of this Order.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-01982-JAT Document 28 Filed 05/11/09 Page 6 of 6