Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00771/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00771-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Art Gerardo
Petitioner
Michael Stainer
Respondent

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ART GERARDO,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL STAINER, California 

Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

No. 1:16-cv-00771-SKO HC

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A CLAIM COGNIZABLE IN A 

FEDERAL HABEAS ACTION

(Docs. 1 and 2)

Screening Order

Petitioner Art Gerardo is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 He seeks to set aside his validation as a prison gang 

member and confinement in a security housing unit (“SHU”). 

I. Preliminary Screening

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 

Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:16-cv-00771-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/20/16 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

2

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears 

that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

II. Procedural and Factual Background 2

On May 26, 2009, California prison officials validated Petitioner as an active associate of 

the Mexican Mafia prison gang based on seven source items indicative of gang membership, as 

set forth in applicable state regulations. By December 2009, Petitioner was aware that his 

administrative challenge had been rejected as untimely. Petitioner then waited over four years 

before filing a state habeas petition. In the absence of any explanation for Petitioner’s delay in 

seeking habeas relief, the Kings County Superior Court denied the petition as untimely on April 

2, 1014.

On November 2, 2015, Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in the California Court of 

Appeal. The Court of Appeal summarily denied the petition on December 18, 2015. The 

California Supreme Court summarily denied the habeas petition on April 13, 2016.

On June 3, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254.

III. Procedural Complications

Petitioner’s failure timely to pursue state habeas remedies raises multiple procedural 

issues, including the question of whether his claims were properly exhausted. Because the Court 

concludes that the federal petition fails to allege a cognizable federal claim, it need not analyze 

these issues. “If a state prisoner alleges no deprivation of a federal right, § 2254 is simply 

inapplicable.” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 120 n. 19 (1982).

 

2

Procedural and factual information is derived from the order of the Kings County Superior Court denying habeas 

relief as untimely. Because the California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court summarily denied review, this Court 

must "look through" the summary denial to the last reasoned decision, which is, in this case, the Superior Court’s 

opinion. Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803-06 (1991).

Case 1:16-cv-00771-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/20/16 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

IV. No Federal Jurisdiction Over Gang Validation

Validation of an inmate as a member of a prison gang, properly referred to as a “security 

threat group,” is a process governed by California state law. A security threat group (STG) is an 

“ongoing formal or informal organization, association, or group of three or more persons which 

has a common name or identifying sign or symbol whose members and/or associates, individually 

or collectively, engage or have engaged, on behalf of that organization, association, or group, in 

two or more acts which include[] planning, organizing, threatening, financing, soliciting or 

committing unlawful acts, or acts of misconduct.” Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3000. Validation is 

the formal and objective process for identifying and documenting STG affiliates in California 

state prisons. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, §§ 3000; 3378.2. Source items for validation may include 

symbols distinctive to specific STGs, association, informants, debriefing reports, written 

materials, photographs, staff information, other agency information, visitors, communication, 

self-admission, offenses, tattoos or other body markings, and legal documents. Cal. Code Regs. 

Tit. 15, § 3378.2. Each category of source item is assigned a points value by which it is weighted 

to permit an objective assessment in the validation process. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3378.2. 

The record indicates that Petitioner’s validation was predicated on seven source items.

In a federal habeas action, Petitioner bears the burden of alleging specific facts showing 

that a federal right is involved. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977). In his claim, 

Petitioner fails to allege these facts and merely challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to 

satisfy California’s validation requirements. 

“It is not the province of a federal court to reexamine state court determinations of state 

law questions.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1991). Because Petitioner’s claim that 

he was improperly validated as a member of a STG is a state law claim, it is not cognizable in a 

federal habeas petition.

Case 1:16-cv-00771-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/20/16 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

V. Legality of Confinement in the SHU

Petitioner contends that he has been illegally confined in the SHU as a result of his STG 

validation. In addition to lacking jurisdiction over the validation process, this Court also lacks 

jurisdiction over the administration of state prisons pursuant to state laws, regulations, and 

procedures. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92 (1973).

“Federal courts do not sit to supervise state prisons, the administration of which is acute 

interest to the states.” Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 229 (1976). “Discipline by prison 

officials in response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the expected perimeters of the 

sentence imposed by a court of law.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995).

An inmate does not have a liberty interest in remaining free of disciplinary segregation. 

Id. See also Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005) (“(T)he Constitution itself does not 

give rise to a liberty interest in avoiding transfer to more adverse conditions of confinement”); 

Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983), overruled in part on other grounds by Sandlin, 515 

U.S. 472 (“[P]rison officials have broad administrative and discretionary authority over the 

institutions the manage and . . . lawfully incarcerated persons retain only a narrow range of 

protected liberty interests”). The Court lacks jurisdiction to address this issue.

VI. Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a 

district court's denial of his petition, but may only appeal in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue a 

certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides:

(a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 

before a district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by 

the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

///

Case 1:16-cv-00771-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/20/16 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

5

(b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding 

to test the validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for 

commitment or trial a person charged with a criminal offense against the 

United States, or to test the validity of such person's detention pending 

removal proceedings.

(c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) 

only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall 

indicate which specific issues or issues satisfy the showing required by 

paragraph (2).

If a court denies a habeas petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability 

"if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims 

or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Although the petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate 

"something more than the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . 

part." Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338.

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court's determination that it lacks jurisdiction to 

address state law issues to be debatable or wrong, or the petition to be deserving of 

encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of 

appealability.

///

///

Case 1:16-cv-00771-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/20/16 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

VII. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

(1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to state a 

cognizable claim;

(2) The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability; and

(3) The Clerk of Court is directed enter judgment for Respondent and close the

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00771-SKO Document 7 Filed 07/20/16 Page 6 of 6