Myles v. Rackley

Filing 16

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/26/2016 RECOMMENDING that respondent's 14 motion to dismiss be granted; Claims 1 and 4 be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a separate action; Claims 2 and 3 be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and this action be referred back to the Magistrate Judge to proceed on Claim 5. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALFRED MYLES,

12

No. 2:16-cv-0278 TLN CKD P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

R. J. RACKLEY,

15

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

16
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

17
18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Before the court is respondent’s motion to dismiss

19

Claims 1-4 of the petition for failure to state a federal claim. Alternatively, respondent argues

20

that certain claims should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a separate petition. (ECF

21

No. 14.) Petitioner has not filed an opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned

22

will recommend that respondent’s motion be granted.

23

I. Background

24

Petitioner was convicted of possession of marijuana in Folsom State Prison and sentenced

25

to a prison term of two years. (Lod. Doc. 1.) Petitioner did not appeal the judgment. In a prison

26

disciplinary hearing based on the same incident, petitioner was found guilty of distribution of a

27

controlled substance within an institution, for which he lost custody credits. (ECF No. 1 at 29,

28

35.)
1

1

Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the state superior court, challenging both his prison

2

disciplinary conviction for distribution and his criminal conviction for possession. (Lod. Doc. 2.)

3

He argued that, under Proposition 47, he was entitled to a sentence reduction from two years to

4

one year or six months.1 (Id.) The court denied the petition, finding that petitioner needed to

5

seek Proposition 47 relief from his criminal conviction in a separate petition under Cal. Penal

6

Code § 1170.18, not in a habeas proceeding. The court also found that petitioner was not entitled

7

to relief from the prison disciplinary action, noting: “Proposition 47 applies only to criminal

8

convictions in a court of law, not to guilt findings in prison disciplinary proceedings.” (Lod. Doc.

9

3.) Petitioner then filed a habeas petition in the state court of appeal, which the court denied.

10

(Lod. Docs. 4 & 5.)

11

Petitioner next petitioned the state superior court to redesignate his sentence under

12

Proposition 47. (Lod. Doc. 6.) The court denied the petition, finding that petitioner was

13

ineligible for resentencing based on his current conviction. (Lod. Doc. 7.)

14

Petitioner filed another habeas petition in the state superior court, challenging both his

15

prison disciplinary conviction and his court judgment. (Lod. Doc. 8.) The court found the claims

16

procedurally barred. (Lod. Doc. 9.)

17

Petitioner then filed a habeas petition in the state supreme court challenging both the

18

prison disciplinary and criminal convictions. (Lod. Doc. 10.) The court summarily denied the

19

petition. (Lod. Doc. 11.)

20
21

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition on February 11, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)
II. Discussion

22

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 provides for

23

summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and

24

any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” The

25

court considers whether summary dismissal of Claims 1-4 is appropriate, as set forth below.

26
27
28

1

Passed by California voters in 2014, Proposition 47 reduces certain drug possession felonies to
misdemeanors and allows people who are already serving felony convictions for these crimes to
petition the court for resentencing.
2

1
2

A. Disciplinary Claims: 1 & 4
Claim 1 of the petition challenges petitioner’s prison disciplinary conviction for

3

distribution of a controlled substance, resulting in a loss of custody credits. Petitioner argues that

4

he was incorrectly found guilty of violating Cal. Code Regs., title 15, § 3016(c), distribution of a

5

controlled substance, rather than possession of a controlled substance. (ECF No. 1 at 25-29.)

6

Likewise in Claim 4, petitioner asserts that he was found guilty of the wrong regulatory violation

7

and received an excessive sentence. (Id. at 34-38.)

8
9

An inmate’s rights arising under federal law concerning disciplinary proceedings which
result in the loss of good conduct sentence credit are, generally speaking, limited to the following:

10

1) Advance written notice of the charges;

11

2) An opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to call

12
13
14
15
16

witnesses and present documentary evidence in his or her defense;
3) A written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the
disciplinary action; and
4) That the findings of the prison disciplinary board be supported by some evidence in the
record. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985).

17

Here, insofar as petitioner argues that his disciplinary conviction for distribution is not

18

supported by “some evidence,” his claim is cognizable in federal habeas. However, he cannot

19

challenge both the disciplinary finding and his criminal conviction in the same action. See Rule

20

2(e) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus. Thus Claims 1 and 4 (which are effectively one

21

claim) should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a separate action.

22

B. State Law Claims: 2 & 3

23

In Claims 2 and 3, petitioner challenges the state court’s refusal to resentence him under

24

Cal. Penal Code § 1170.18, enacted by Proposition 47. In Claim 3, petitioner characterizes this as

25

a federal due process claim. (ECF No. 1 at 30-34.)

26

Federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable for alleged errors in the interpretation or

27

application of state sentencing laws by a state court. See Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50

28

(1992) (the question to be decided by a federal court on petition for habeas corpus is not whether
3

1

the state committed state-law error but whether the state court’s action was “so arbitrary or

2

capricious” as to constitute an independent violation of the federal constitution); Brown v. Mayle,

3

283 F.3d 1019, 1040 (9th Cir. 2002) (petitioner’s claim that he should be resentenced under state

4

law was not cognizable on federal habeas review), vacated on other grounds by Mayle v. Brown,

5

538 U.S. 901 (2003). Citing federal due process in a claim for resentencing under state law does

6

not make the claim reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Thus Claims 2 and 3 should be

7

dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

8
9

In sum, the undersigned will recommend that four of petitioner’s five claims be dismissed
and this action proceed on the remaining claim, Claim 5.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:

11

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) be granted;

12

2. Claims 1 and 4 be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a separate action;

13

3. Claims 2 and 3 be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim; and

14

4. This action be referred back to the Magistrate Judge to proceed on Claim 5.

15

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

16

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

17

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

18

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

19

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

20

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

21

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to

22

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

23

Dated: October 26, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27

2 / myle0278.mtd

28
4