Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20141120_0005331.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-23 10:15:21
Document Index: 45752524

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

| Dickerson v. Foulk
Dickerson v. Foulk
LADELL DICKERSON, Petitioner,v.F. FOULK, Respondent
Ladell Dickerson, Petitioner, Pro se, Susanville, CA.
For F. Foulk, Warden, Respondent: Stanton W. Lee, LEAD ATTORNEY, Attorney General's Office of the State of California, Sacramento, CA.
Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges the revocation of 180 days of good conduct sentence credit imposed following prisoner disciplinary proceedings. He asserts there was not enough evidence presented at the proceedings to sustain the finding that he committed the offense of " constructive possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of distribution." An application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody under a judgment of a state court can be granted only for violations of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Also, federal habeas corpus relief is not available for any claim decided on the merits in state court proceedings unless the state court's adjudication of the claim:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (referenced herein in as " § 2254(d)." It is the habeas petitioner's burden to show he is not precluded from obtaining relief by § 2254(d). See Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 25, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002).
The " contrary to" and " unreasonable application" clauses of § 2254(d)(1) are different. As the Supreme Court has explained:
A federal habeas court may issue the writ under the " contrary to" clause if the state court applies a rule different from the governing law set forth in our cases, or if it decides a case differently than we have done on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. The court may grant relief under the " unreasonable application" clause if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal principle from our decisions but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular case. The focus of the latter inquiry is on whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable, and we stressed in Williams [v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)] that an unreasonable application is different from an incorrect one.
Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002). A state court does not apply a rule different from the law set forth in Supreme Court cases, or unreasonably apply such law, if the state court simply fails to cite or fails to indicate an awareness of federal law. Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002).
When a state court rejects a federal claim without addressing the claim, a federal court presumes the claim was adjudicated on the merits, in which case &sect; 2254(d) deference is applicable. Johnson v. Williams, 133 S.Ct. 1088, 1096, ...