IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 6, 2010
JOHN HARDNEY, PETITIONER,
THOMAS CAREY, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary conviction that resulted from a rules violation report issued against him on March 26, 2004, while he was imprisoned at California State Prison, Solano. Petitioner seeks relief on due process grounds, claiming that (1) the investigative employee assigned to assist him in preparing for his disciplinary hearing failed to gather evidence and conduct interviews; (2) he was not given adequate notice of the charge against him because the notice did not include dates on which the misconduct was alleged to have occurred; and (3) he was not allowed to present witnesses at his disciplinary hearing. //// ////
The court finds that supplemental briefing is necessary to resolve the third of petitioner's claims. In particular, the court is interested in argument and/or evidence regarding: (1) petitioner's assertion that he did not rescind his request for witnesses at the disciplinary hearing; (2) petitioner's assertion that he requested that Sergeant Paradis appear to either refute or confirm that Officer Edwards had reported incidents of harassment; (3) if the SHO refused petitioner's request to call Sergeant Paradis to testify, why; and (4) whether petitioner suffered prejudice as the result of any refusal to call Sergeant Paradis to testify. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 7.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties submit supplemental briefing on the above-described issues within 60 days of the date of this order.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.