Lopez v. Chappell
Filing
7
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS; TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge William Alsup denying 4 Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
JESUS LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
12
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS; TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
13
14
No. C 13-4797 WHA (PR)
K. CHAPPEL,
(Docket No. 4)
Respondent.
15
/
16
INTRODUCTION
17
Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
18
19
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The petition challenges disciplinary findings by prison
20
officials that petitioner violated prison rules against controlled substances. The petition was
21
found to state a cognizable claim for relief, and respondent was ordered to show cause why the
22
petition should not be granted. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the
23
grounds that there is no federal habeas jurisdiction over his claims, and that his claims do not
24
state a viable claim for relief. Petitioner filed an opposition, and respondent filed a reply brief.
ANALYSIS
25
26
A.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
27
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in
28
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
1
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Rose
2
v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
3
requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ
4
of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state
5
court must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner ... and shall
6
set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Rule 2(c) of
7
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not
8
sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of
9
constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d
688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
B.
12
LEGAL CLAIMS
In March 2010, prison officials issued a Rules Violation Report (“ RVR”) against
13
petitioner for distributing controlled substances in prison. The RVR was based on findings that
14
he conspired with another inmate to bring controlled substances into Deuel Vocational
15
Institution, where he was housed at the time. Petitioner claims that prison officials have
16
violated his right to due process because there is no evidence to support the disciplinary
17
findings.
18
Respondent argues that there is no federal habeas jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim
19
because the RVR does not affect the fact or duration of his custody and success on his claims
20
would not entitle him to speedier release. Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner
21
who seeks “‘immediate or speedier release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct.
22
1289, 1293 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)). “Where the
23
prisoner’s claim would not ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ however, suit may be brought
24
under § 1983.’” Skinner, 131 S. Ct. at 1293 (quoting Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 82). The Ninth
25
Circuit has held that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper, where a
26
successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”
27
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003).
28
Respondent’s argues that the RVR does not affect the fact or duration of his custody
2
1
because it did not impose a loss of time credits as part of petitioner’s punishment. However,
2
petitioner, who is serving an indeterminate life sentence, shows that the RVR causes the
3
California Board of Parole Hearings to withhold four months of post-conviction credits that he
4
would otherwise receive. See 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 2410(b),(d) (allowing for four months of
5
post-conviction credits per year of incarceration). Respondent does not dispute the loss of such
6
credits, but argues that the losing post-conviction credits does is insufficient to establish federal
7
habeas jurisdiction. Respondent cites no authority providing that federal habeas jurisdiction is
8
absent when an inmate challenges a loss of post-conviction credits. Moreover, respondent
9
acknowledges that petitioner’s “actual release date” is affected by the number of postconviction credits he is awarded (Reply 2), and there is no dispute that petitioner will lose four
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
months of post-conviction credits for the year he received the RVR (id. 2-3). Under these
12
circumstances, and in the absence of authority to the contrary, the loss of four months of post-
13
conviction credits from the RVR means that his claims a challenge the duration of his custody
14
so as to establish federal habeas jurisdiction.
15
Respondent also argues that petitioner does not state a cognizable basis for federal
16
habeas relief because petitioner claims a violation of only state law. See Swarthout v. Cooke,
17
131 S. Ct. 859, 861-62 (2011) (federal habeas writ is unavailable for violations of state law or
18
for alleged error in the interpretation or application of state law). Respondent argues that
19
petitioner claims that prison officials failed to test the controlled substances, which is required
20
by prison regulations but not by federal law. Respondent is correct that there is no federal law
21
requiring controlled substances to be tested, but petitioner is not claiming that the failure to test
22
the substances violated his right to due process. Rather, he claims that the absence of evidence
23
that he distributed controlled substances violated his right to due process. The absence of test
24
results is simply one of the reasons that petitioner argues there was no evidence to support the
25
RVR, in addition his assertions that no narcotics were brought into the prison and that no
26
narcotics were discovered in the possession of either petitioner or any alleged co-conspirator.
27
Respondent acknowledges that due process does require prison officials to have at least “some
28
evidence” that an inmate violated a prison rule before discipline may be imposed.
3
1
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). Petitioner’s claim that no evidence
2
supported the RVR states a cognizable claim for the violation of his right to due process. In his
3
answer, ordered below, this claim of insufficient evidence is the claim respondent must address
4
by identifying what evidence supported the RVR and explaining how such evidence meets the
5
“some evidence” standard of Hill.
6
CONCLUSION
7
In light of the foregoing,
8
1. The motion to dismiss (dkt. 4) is DENIED.
9
2. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within ninety-one days
of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be
12
granted based on the claim found cognizable herein. Respondent shall file with the answer and
13
serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed
14
previously and that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
15
16
17
If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the
court and serving it on respondent within twenty-eight days of the date the answer is filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated: August
18
, 2014.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?