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.

Nia v. Smelosky

April 21, 2010

AASIM NIA, PETITIONER,
v.
M. SMELOSKY, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Thomas J. Whelan United States District Judge

ORDER: 1) ADOPTS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 10.) 2) DENIES PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1.)

On July 21, 2008, Petitioner Aasim Nia ("Petitioner"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) On July 29, 2008, the case was transferred from the Eastern District of California to this Court. (Id.) On October 5, 2009, Magistrate Judge Jan Adler filed a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that the Court deny the Petition. (Doc. 10.) On February 22, 2010, Petitioner filed his objections to the Report. (Doc. 16.) The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civil Local Rule 7.1(d.1). For the reasons outlined below, the Court ADOPTS the Report and DENIES the Petition.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a prisoner at Centinela State Prison. While working kitchen detail in Dining Hall 3A on November 6, 2006, Petitioner told Correctional Officer Jimenez, "I quit, give me my I.D. so I can go home." Officer Jimenez informed Petitioner that he would be marked absent for the day and that he would receive a Rules Violation Report. Petitioner received a copy of the Violation Report, which classified the violation as "serious," on November 9, 2006. A hearing was held on November 21, 2006, with Lieutenant Kavanaugh serving as the Senior Hearing Official ("SHO"). Petitioner pled not guilty. The SHO found Petitioner guilty of the violation and he was assessed a thirty day credit forfeiture along with a ninety day privileges suspension.

Petitioner challenged the disciplinary action through the prison grievance system and his appeal was denied at the highest level of review on February 28, 2001. (Lodgment 3.) He then filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the California courts, which were denied at every level. (Lodgment 5, 7, & 9.)

On July 31, 2008, after exhausting all administrative and state remedies, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition, raising the same due process claim. (Report at 2.) On October 5, 2009, Magistrate Judge Adler recommended the Court deny Petitioner's habeas request. (Report at 1,5.) On February 22, 2010, following a time extension from the Court, Petitioner submitted his Objection. (Doc. 16.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The duties of a district court in connection with a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court "must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made," and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1989).

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner seeks relief on grounds that his federal right to due process was violated because: (1)he was denied the right to call certain witnesses; (2) he was denied the right to question Officer Jimenez; (3) the decision was based on an incomplete record; (4) the decision was not made by a fair and impartial decision maker; and (5) the decision was not supported by a preponderance of evidence. (Pet. [Doc. 1] at 5--7.)

This Court is required to accord prison administrators "wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979). It does, however, review prison disciplinary proceedings to determine if they comported with due process and if some evidence supported the decision of the prison disciplinary committee. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563--70 (U.S. 1974). In order for Petitioner to be entitled to habeas relief on his due process claim, he must show that the SHO's finding of "some evidence" was either objectively unreasonable or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 5 (2003).

Having read and considered the underlying Petition, the Report, and Petitioner's objections thereto, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's objections, ADOPTS the Report, and for the reasons below, DENIES Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus.

A. Grounds One and Two - Lack of Witness Testimony

In Ground One, Petitioner claims he was denied the right to call and question certain witnesses at his disciplinary hearing. (Pet. at 5.) In Ground Two, Petitioner claims he was denied the right to question Officer Jimenez, who was present at the hearing. (Id.) Petitioner alleges that the denial of opportunities to call and question witnesses violates his federal right to due process. (Id.) The Report ...


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.