Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01607/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01607-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Davey
Respondent
Roberto Herrera
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

In this action, Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary hearing held on November 21, 2015, 

at which Petitioner was found guilty of possessing an inmate manufactured weapon. Petitioner filed 

the instant petition on October 26, 2016. (Doc. 1). 

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal.

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. A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed 

ROBERTO HERRERA,

 Petitioner,

v.

D. DAVEY,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01607-JLT (HC)

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT 

AN AMENDED PETITION

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

SEND PETITIONER A FORM FOR FILING 

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2254

Case 1:16-cv-01607-AWI-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 4
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

without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such 

leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 

B. Exhaustion of Remedies.

A petitioner who is in state custody proceeding with a petition for 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 (9th Cir. 1988). 

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 (9th Cir. 1996). In this instance, the highest state court would be the California Supreme 

Court. A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full 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). 

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a 

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 669 (9th 

Cir.2000), amended, 247 F.3d 904 (2001); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir.1999); 

Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). 

In this case, Petitioner states he has exhausted his administrative remedies; however, he fails to 

state whether he has presented his claims to the California Supreme Court. In his amended petition, 

Petitioner must provide the specific information regarding what claims he has raised in the California 

Supreme Court, when those claims were denied, and provide copies of the state high court’s orders 

denying those claims.

C. Failure to State a Cognizable Federal Habeas Claim.

A prisoner in a prison disciplinary hearing is not entitled to the full array of due process rights 

that a defendant possesses in a criminal prosecution. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). 

Case 1:16-cv-01607-AWI-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 4
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

However, a prisoner who is accused of serious rules violations and who may be deprived of his or her 

good-time credits is entitled to certain minimum procedural protections. Id. at 571-71 n. 9. 

The process due in such a prison disciplinary hearing includes: (1) written notification of the 

charges; (2) at least a brief period of time after the notice to prepare for the hearing; (3) a written 

statement by the fact-finders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action; (4) 

the inmate facing the charges should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in 

his defense when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or 

correctional goals. Id. at 564, 566, 570. 

In addition, a decision to revoke an inmate’s good-time credit does not comport with minimum 

procedural due process requirements unless its underlying findings are supported by “some evidence.” 

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). In reviewing a decision for “some evidence,” 

courts “are not required to conduct an examination of the entire record, independently assess witness 

credibility, or weigh the evidence, but only determine whether the prison disciplinary board’s decision 

to revoke good time credits has some factual basis.” Id. at 455-56. The Ninth Circuit has further held 

that there must be “some indicia of reliability of the information that forms the basis for prison 

disciplinary actions.” Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1987).

In this case, Petitioner claims his constitutional rights were violated because prison staff 

claimed no video recording of the incident existed even though policy requires prison staff to record 

“use of force” incidents. Nevertheless, a videotaped recording of a use of force incident is not a 

minimum due process requirement, and Petitioner does not claim that any of the due process 

requirements identified above were violated. Therefore, he fails to state a claim for relief.

ORDER

For all of the foregoing reasons, the instant petition in deficient. Petitioner will be required to 

file an amended petition curing the deficiencies identified above, if he is able. Otherwise, the Court 

will recommend the action be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. Petitioner is GRANTED

thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a first amended petition that is in 

complies with this order; and

Case 1:16-cv-01607-AWI-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 4
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

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for 

petitioners filing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an 

Order of Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01607-AWI-JLT Document 4 Filed 12/09/16 Page 4 of 4