Eli Sandoval v. Jack Fox et al

Filing 23

OPINION AND ORDER: I ADOPT Judge Coffin's F & R 18 . Plaintiff's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. Signed on 5/15/2018 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
ELI SANDOVAL,

Case No. 3:17-cv-01214-JR
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD IVES and MARY MITCHELL,
Defendants.

AIKEN, Judge:
On February 20, 2018, Magistrate Judge Russo filed her Findings and Recommendation
("F &R"), recommending that I deny plaintiff Eli Sandoval's petition for a writ of habeas corpus
and dismiss this case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636 and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72. I review de nova those portions of the F&R to which plaintiff filed
objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Holder v. Holder, 392
F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff argues that Judge Russo applied an incorrect standard of review. Plaintiff cites

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 537 (2004), Brown v. Fauver, 819 F.2d 395, 399 n.4 (3d Cir.
1987), and BOP regulations in support of his argument that application of a "some evidence"
burden of proof in a prison disciplinary proceeding deprives the prisoner of due process.

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff has conflated the burden of proof with the standard of review. The burden of proof
describes the evidence the prison must produce in the disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff correctly
notes that BOP regulations impose a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in inmate
disciplinary proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 541.7(e) ("The [disciplinary] decision will be based
on at least some facts and, if there is conflicting evidence, on the greater weight of the
evidence."). Plaintiff is also co!Tect that application of a standard of less than a preponderance at
the disciplinary hearing level would raise constitutional concerns because it would mean "an
inmate can be punished for acts which he in all probability did not connnit.'' Brown, 819 F.2d at
399 n.4.
But there is a difference between the burden of proof at the hearing level and the
standard of review applied by a reviewing comi. The Supreme Comi has squarely held that the
"some evidence" standard of review complies with due process in the context of reviewing
prison disciplinary decisions resulting in the loss of good time credits. Superintendent, Mass.
Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56; see also Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 537 (explaining
the difference between burden of proof and standard of review, and noting that the Supreme
Court has never endorsed a "some evidence" burden ofproof as constitutionally sound). Judge
Russo correctly applied the "some evidence" standard of review.
Plaintiff also argues that no evidence in the record suppo1is the finding that he violated
the rule against possessing medications not prescribed to him. Plaintiff concedes he admitted to
possessing the drugs, but contends that his admission was not reliable because he made it under
coercive circumstances. Plaintiffs admission, even though made "on the spot" and in front of
other inmates, satisfies the "some evidence" standard of review. The prison was under no
obligation to perfo1m testing on the drugs when plaintiff had already admitted to the violation.

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

I ADOPT Judge Coffin's F&R (doc. 18). Plaintiffs petition for a writ of habeas corpus
is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this /bday of May 2018.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

3 - OPINION AND ORDER