Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06268/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06268-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond Andrews
Respondent
David Ciglar
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CIGLAR, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

RAYMOND ANDREWS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:99-CV-06268 WMW HC

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to proceed before a Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). 

This case was previously assigned to Magistrate Judge Hollis G. Best. During the pendency

of this action, Magistrate Best passed away, and on August 12, 2002, the case was erroneously

closed and no longer appeared on the Court’s docket as an active case. Recently, the Court

discovered this error. On April 29, 2008, the case was reassigned to the undersigned.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a former federal prisoner in custody at the Taft Correctional Institution who was

serving a sentence of 120 months with an 8 year term of supervised release to follow pursuant to a

judgment of the United States District Court entered on November 10, 1992. 

On March 1, 2000, Petitioner was released to home confinement in the State of Nevada. He

Case 1:99-cv-06268-WMW Document 26 Filed 05/01/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

was thereafter released on June 28, 2000, and placed on 8 years supervised release. The instant

petition was filed on August 26, 1999. Respondent’s answer was filed on March 23, 2000. Petitioner

filed his traverse on June 15, 2000.

With this petition, Petitioner does not challenge his underlying conviction and sentence.

Rather, he challenges a prison disciplinary hearing held on January 20, 1999, in which he was found

guilty of violating the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) rules against conducting a business and receiving

money from another person. The disciplinary hearing officer found Petitioner guilty of the charges.

As a result, Petitioner received a disciplinary transfer and assessed a thirty (30) day loss of

commissary and telephone privileges.

DISCUSSION

Prisoners cannot be entirely deprived of their constitutional rights, but their rights may be

diminished by the needs and objectives of the institutional environment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

U.S. 539, 555 (1974). Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, so a

prisoner is not afforded the full panoply of rights in such proceedings. Id. at 556. Thus, a prisoner’s

due process rights are moderated by the “legitimate institutional needs” of a prison. Bostic v.

Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), citing Superintendent, etc. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-

455 (1984).

However, when a prison disciplinary proceeding may result in the loss of good time credits,

due process requires that the prisoner receive: (1) advance written notice of at least 24 hours of the

disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional

goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement

by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Hill, 472 U.S.

at 454; Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-567. In addition, due process requires that the decision be supported

by “some evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, citing United States ex rel. Vatauer v. Commissioner of

Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106 (1927).

In this case, the disciplinary proceeding did not result in the loss of good time credits.

Petitioner only sustained a disciplinary transfer and loss of telephone and commissary privileges. The

Court also finds no collateral consequences resulted from the disciplinary finding. The violations

Case 1:99-cv-06268-WMW Document 26 Filed 05/01/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

committed by Petitioner, according to the BOP Program Statement 5100.07, cannot be used for

classification purposes unless they occurred within the past year. At the time Respondent filed the

answer, the violation committed by Petitioner had occurred over two years before and Petitioner had

not sustained any collateral consequences. Therefore, no constitutional due process rights were

implicated by the disciplinary proceeding.

Notwithstanding, Petitioner received all procedural due process protections. He was provided

advance written notice of the charges on December 17, 1998. See Respondent’s Response to Order

to Show Cause, Exhibit C. He was provided an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and

witness testimony. Id. He was provided a written statement of the findings. See Respondent’s

Response to Order to Show Cause, Exhibits 1, A, B, C, D, E. In addition, Petitioner does not argue

the finding was not supported by “some evidence.” Therefore, no due process violation occurred. 

Accordingly, the petition is meritless and must be denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; and 

2) The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06268-WMW Document 26 Filed 05/01/08 Page 3 of 3