The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur L. Alarcón United States Circuit Judge
Henry C. Williams, III, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) on July 31, 2006. Mr. Williams alleges several violations of his federal constitutional rights in connection with a disciplinary hearing concerning a charged rule violation at the California Medical Facility where he is currently incarcerated.
Respondent filed a response to Mr. William's petition on October 5, 2006. (Doc. No. 10). Petitioner's traverse was filed November 7, 2006 (Doc. No. 13). Counsel was appointed on May 30, 2008. (Doc. No. 24).
On January 17, 2008, Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the inclusion of this pending litigation as information for consideration of suitability at Petitioner's upcoming parole hearing.
(Doc. No. 19). On May 23, 2008, this Court ordered Respondent to file a response to Petitioner's motion. (Doc. No. 23). The response was filed on June 11, 2008. (Doc. No. 27). Petitioner filed a reply on July 21, 2008. Respondent filed a sur-reply on August 1, 2008. (Doc. Nos. 32 and 35). Petitioner's parole hearing is scheduled to take place on August 7, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Doc. No. 33, Exh. 1).
For the reasons discussed below, Mr. William's petition is DENIED. For this reason, the Court will also DENY Petitioner's motion to suppress.
Petitioner is currently serving an indeterminate state prison sentence of 15 years to life at the California Medical Facility, based upon his conviction, in 1998, of second degree murder. Mr. Williams alleges in his petition that he was denied his right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in connection with a disciplinary action in which he was found guilty of theft in violation of CCR Title 15 § 3012.
At a disciplinary hearing on January 27, 2005, Petitioner, who was assigned to work at the "Main Yard Canteen Shack," was found guilty of possessing $18.00 worth of contraband canteen ducats and violating canteen procedures by making deliveries of canteen items to inmates on the yard for a profit. (Doc. No. 10, Exh. A).
Petitioner appealed the disciplinary board's findings and received First, Second and Director's Level review of the decision. The First Level Appeal Response denied Petitioner's appeal on February 13, 2005. The Second Level Appeal Response denied Petitioner's appeal on May 12, 2005. On September 12, 2005, a Director's Level Appeal Decision also denied Petitioner's appeal. Id.
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Solano County Superior Court which was denied on December 19, 2005. The state trial court issued a written decision denying the petition on the ground that Petitioner had failed to establish a prima facie case for relief "because the record indicates that the decision by the prison disciplinary board ...