Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00424/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00424-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lorenzo Calleros
Petitioner
Ken Clark
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

LORENZO CALLEROS,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN CLARK, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00424 OWW SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 24, 2008. (Court

Doc. 1.) Petitioner is challenges a disciplinary infraction and contends that prison officials have

failed to respond to his administrative appeal challenging the infraction and there is insufficient

evidence to support the finding of guilt. (Petition, at 5.)

The existence of an administrative remedy process does not create any substantive rights

and cannot support a claim for relief for violation of a constitutional right. Ramirez v. Galaza,

334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); Massey

v. Helman, 259 F.2d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001). Thus, the failure to respond to Petitioner’s

administrative appeal cannot serve as the basis for liability, and Petitioner cannot proceed with

such claim in the instant petition. 

However, the Due Process Clause does requires that when a prison disciplinary

Case 1:08-cv-00424-VRW Document 4 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 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

2

proceeding may result in the loss of good time credits, the decision must be supported by “some

evidence.” Superintendent, etc. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-455 (1984), citing United States ex rel.

Vatauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106 (1927). As such, the instant

petition may proceed on Petitioner’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the

finding of guilt. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Claim One of the instant petition regarding prison official’s failure to process

Petitioner’s administrative appeal be DISMISSED from the action for failure to

state a claim; and,

2. This action proceed on Claim Two of the instant petition challenging the

sufficiency of the evidence to support his disciplinary infraction. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00424-VRW Document 4 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 2