The opinion of the court was delivered by: Fred Van Sickle Senior United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner's Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Ct. Rec. 1). Petitioner is proceeding pro se. Respondent is represented by Andrew Robert Woodrow, an Assistant Attorney General for the State of California.
At the time his petition was filed, Petitioner was in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to his July 25, 1979, conviction in Los Angeles County Superior Court for one count of kidnaping for robbery, one count of robbery, two counts of forcible rape in concert with another, and once count of grand theft of an automobile. (Ct. Rec.8, Exh. 1). Petitioner is a life prisoner serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment. He has not been found suitable for parole. Petitioner does not challenge the validity of his conviction or sentence but seeks habeas relief on the ground that he was denied due process at a prison disciplinary hearing. (Ct. Rec. 1).
On May 18, 2005, Petitioner was issued a Rules Violation Report charging him with resisting a peace officer in violation of California Code of Regulations, title 15, section 3005(c). (Ct. Rec. 8, Exh. 4). A disciplinary hearing on the report was held on June 19, 2005, before Senior Hearing Officer J. L. Bishop, and Petitioner was found guilty of the charged violation. (Ct. Rec. 8, Exh. 4). Petitioner was assessed 90 days loss of credit. Id.
Petitioner pursued his administrative appeals in an effort to reverse the decision of the senior hearing officer; however, all appeals were denied.
Petitioner filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus with the Lassen County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, and the California Supreme Court, all of which were denied. (Ct. Rec. 8, Exh. 7-9).
On December 28, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Petitioner claims his due process rights were violated at the disciplinary hearing because he was denied witnesses and there was insufficient evidence to support the guilty finding. (Ct. Rec. 1). Petitioner requests that the guilty finding be reversed. (Ct. Rec. 9 at 5).
Respondent filed a response to the petition on February 26, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 8).
Petitioner filed a traverse to the response on March 20, 2007. (Ct. Rec. 9).
Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Ct. Rec. 1) is now before the Court.
I. Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
Respondents assert that the petition should be denied because habeas jurisdiction is absent in this case. (Ct. Rec. 8 at 6-7). Specifically, Respondents indicate that Petitioner's rule violation resulted in a loss of credit which would have only affected his minimum eligible parole date. A minimum eligible parole date affects the date of a life prisoner's initial parole hearing. Since Petitioner is a life prisoner who has not been found suitable for release after ten parole hearings, and Petitioner's initial parole hearing has thus long since ...