Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jameson v. Yates

November 15, 2008

BARRY JAMESON, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES YATES, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. 1]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, following a conviction in the Los Angeles Superior Court, for second degree murder. (Exhibit 1, attached to Answer.) Petitioner is serving an indeterminate sentence of fifteen years to life. (Id.)

In the instant petition, Petitioner does not challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence; rather, he contends that his due process rights were violated in relation to an institutional disciplinary violation he received for failure to comply with emergency procedures.

Petitioner filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Fresno County Superior Court raising his due process challenge. (Exhibit 3, attached to Answer.) The superior court denied the petition without prejudice because Petitioner failed to properly exhaust the administrative remedies, improperly combined two distinct writ remedies, and had a record of filing questionable and/or procedurally defective petitions in that court. (Exhibit 4, attached to Answer.)

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition in the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, which was summarily denied. (Exhibit 5, attached to Answer.)

Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, which was also summarily denied. (Exhibit 6, attached to Answer.)

Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 14, 2007. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on March 13, 2008, and Petitioner filed a traverse on April 9, 2008. (Court Docs. 12, 15, 16.)

Pursuant to this Court's order, Respondent filed supplemental briefing on September 11, 2008, and Petitioner filed a reply on September 29, 2008. (Court Docs. 18-27.)

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Petitioner's claims for relief arise out of a disciplinary hearing. Petitioner is confined at the Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, which is located within the jurisdiction of this Court. 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 2254(a), 2241(d). If a constitutional violation has resulted in the loss of time credits, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.