Munoz v. Madden

Filing 14

ORDER Declining to Adopt Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 9 ] and Denying Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 5 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 5/5/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARMANDO MUNOZ,

Case No.: 16cv2447-CAB-NLS
Petitioner,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [Doc. No. 9]
AND DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS [Doc. No. 5]

RAYMOND MADDEN,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

18

Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes, filed on March 2, 2017, recommending that the Court

19

grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 9.] On April 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed

20

objections to the R&R. [Doc. No. 13.] Respondent has not filed any reply to the

21

objections. Having considered the parties’ arguments and for the reasons stated herein,

22

the Court disagrees with the R&R and DECLINES to adopt it. Instead, Respondent’s

23

motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 5] is DENIED.

24

DISCUSSION

25

Petitioner is a state inmate challenging an institutional disciplinary action in which

26

he was found guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia. Specifically, he contends that

27

prison officials improperly found he constructively possessed drug paraphernalia found in

28

his cell and failed to identify any evidence showing that Petitioner knew the drug
1
16cv2447-CAB-NLS

1

paraphernalia was in his cell. [Doc. No. 1 at 6.] In the motion to dismiss, Respondent

2

argues that the Petition fails to state a federal claim because Petitioner is essentially

3

asking the court to review a state-court determination on a question of state law. [Doc.

4

No. 5-1 at 2.] Respondent is correct that the Petition does seek adjudication of whether

5

prison officials misapplied the criteria for “constructive possession” under California

6

Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3000 [Doc. No. 1 at 8], and whether they

7

mistakenly concluded that he was responsible for his cellmate’s property, in violation of

8

California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3022 [Doc. No. 1 at 9-10]. To the extent

9

the Petition claims a violation of state law, there is no federal claim. Estelle v. McGuire,

10
11

502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991).
However, a prisoner may challenge a prison disciplinary conviction by petition for

12

writ of habeas corpus if the conviction resulted in the loss of good time credits because

13

credits impact the duration of the prisoner's confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

14

475, 487–88, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973) (suit seeking restoration of good time credits was

15

“within the core of habeas corpus in attacking the very duration of their physical

16

confinement itself”). While prisoners may not be wholly deprived of their constitutional

17

rights, “there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives

18

and the provisions of the Constitution ....” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.

19

Ct. 2963 (1974). “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution,

20

and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Id. A

21

prisoner's due process rights must be accommodated to the “legitimate institutional

22

needs” of a prison. Bostic, 884 F.2d at 1269 (overruled on other grounds by Nettles, ___

23

F.3d ____, 2016 WL 4072465 (July 26, 2016)), citing Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.

24

445, 454–455, 105 S. Ct. 2768 [ ] (1984).

25

With respect to prison disciplinary proceedings, the minimum procedural

26

requirements that must be met are: (1) written notice of the charges; (2) at least 24 hours

27

between the time the prisoner receives written notice and the time of the hearing, so that

28

the prisoner may prepare his defense; (3) a written statement by the fact finders of the
2
16cv2447-CAB-NLS

1

evidence they rely on and reasons for taking disciplinary action; (4) the right of the

2

prisoner to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, when

3

permitting him to do so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or

4

correctional goals; and (5) legal assistance to the prisoner where the prisoner is illiterate

5

or the issues presented are legally complex. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563–71. Confrontation and

6

cross examination are not generally required. Id. at 567.

7

In addition, due process requires that the decision be supported by “some

8

evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, 105 S. Ct. 2768, citing United States ex rel. Vajtauer v.

9

Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106, 47 S. Ct. 302, 71 L.Ed. 560 (1927). In

10

Hill, the United States Supreme Court explained that this standard is met if “there was

11

some evidence from which the conclusion of the administrative tribunal could be deduced

12

....” Id. Ascertaining whether this standard is satisfied does not require an examination of

13

the entire record, independent assessment of the credibility of witnesses, or weighing of

14

the evidence.” Id. at 455–56. Instead, “the relevant question is whether there is any

15

evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary

16

board.” Id.

17

Here, while Petitioner does appear to seek adjudication of state law claims, he also

18

alleges that his “right to due process was violated” [Doc. No. 1 at 6] and that there was

19

“no evidence” that Petitioner was aware of the contraband [Doc. No. 1 at 8]. Thus,

20

Petitioner has made sufficient allegations to state a federal due process claim under Hill,

21

472 U.S. at 455. Whether there was, in fact, “some evidence” to support the decision of

22

the hearing officer is a merits question that is not appropriately addressed in a motion to

23

dismiss.

24

Respondent also argues that Petitioner cites to a Seventh Circuit case that sets forth

25

a rule that has not been adopted by this circuit. [Doc. No. 5-1 at 3.] Petitioner cites to

26

Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 720-721 (7th Cir. 1996), where the Seventh Circuit ruled

27

that where a prison inmate produces exculpatory evidence that directly undermines

28

reliability of evidence in the record pointing to his violation of prison regulations, he is
3
16cv2447-CAB-NLS

1

entitled under due process to an explanation of why disciplinary officials disregarded

2

exculpatory evidence and refused to find it persuasive. While that specific rule has not

3

necessarily been adopted by this Circuit (see Hall v. Allison, 2013 WL 1829816 (C.D.

4

Cal. Mar. 5, 2013)), there are due process requirements regarding prison disciplinary

5

convictions under Hill and Wolff. By alleging that there was “no evidence” to support the

6

conviction, Petitioner has sufficiently pled a federal due process claim. Whether that

7

allegation can be proven is not appropriately addressed in a motion to dismiss.

8
9
10
11
12

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DECLINES to adopt the Report and
HEREBY DENIES the motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 5, 2017

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
16cv2447-CAB-NLS