The opinion of the court was delivered by: James K. Singleton, Jr. United States District Judge
David Wayne Johnson, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Johnson is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, incarcerated at the California State Prison, Solano. Respondent has answered, and Johnson has replied.
I. BACKGROUND/PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
In February 1983 following his conviction by a Riverside County Superior Court jury of Murder in the First-Degree under California Penal Code § 187, Johnson was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of twenty-seven years to life. Johnson does not challenge his conviction or sentence in these proceedings.
In January 2008, Johnson was charged in a Rules Violation Report ("RVR") with a disciplinary violation for engaging in "conduct which could lead to violence." According to the RVR, when Johnson asked a fellow inmate for some ice, Johnson was told to come back later. The two started arguing and Johnson pushed the other prisoner down onto the floor. At Johnson's disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charge and assessed a loss of thirty days of good time credits. On administrative appeal Johnson's conviction was vacated, reissued, and the charge reheard. In April 2009, Johnson was once again found guilty of the disciplinary charge, but the RVR was dismissed, and Johnson's misconduct was instead reported in an administrative counseling chrono with no loss of credits. Johnson challenged the disciplinary decision in a state habeas proceeding in the Solano County Superior Court, which denied his petition in an unreported, reasoned decision. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, summarily denied his subsequent petition for relief without opinion or citation to authority, and the California Supreme Court did likewise on May 20, 2010. Johnson timely filed his Petition in this Court on May 20, 2010.
II. GROUNDS RAISED/DEFENSES
In his Amended Petition Johnson raises three grounds: (1) that he was denied a non-biased, impartial hearing; (2) the disciplinary finding of guilt was unsupported by any reliable evidence; and (3) the refusal of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") to remove the RVR and related documentation violates his procedural due process rights. Respondent contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Respondent does not raise any other affirmative defense.*fn1
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), this Court cannot grant relief unless the decision of the state court was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" at the time the state court renders its decision or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding."*fn2 The Supreme Court has explained that "clearly established Federal law" in § 2254(d)(1) "refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme Court] as of the time of the relevant state-court decision."*fn3 The holding must also be intended to be binding upon the states; that is, the decision must be based upon constitutional grounds, not on the supervisory power of the Supreme Court over federal courts.*fn4
Thus, where holdings of the Supreme Court regarding the issue
presented on habeas review are lacking, "it cannot be said that the
state court 'unreasonabl[y] appli[ed] clearly established Federal
law.'"*fn5 When a claim falls under the "unreasonable
application" prong, a state court's application of Supreme Court
precedent must be "objectively unreasonable," not just "incorrect or
erroneous."*fn6 The Supreme Court has made clear that
the objectively unreasonable standard is "a substantially higher
threshold" than simply believing that the state-court determination
was incorrect.*fn7 "[A]bsent a specific
constitutional violation, federal habeas corpus review of trial error is limited to
whether the error 'so infected the trial with unfairness as to make
the resulting conviction a denial of due process.'"*fn8
In a federal habeas proceeding, the standard under which this
Court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a
state court criminal trial is whether the error had a substantial and
injurious effect or influence in determining the outcome.*fn9
Because state court judgments of conviction and sentence
carry a presumption of finality and legality, the petitioner has the
burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she
merits habeas relief.*fn10
The Supreme Court recently underscored the magnitude of the deference required: As amended by AEDPA, § 2254(d) stops short of imposing a complete bar on federal court relitigation of claims already rejected in state proceedings. Cf. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 664, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996) (discussing AEDPA's "modified res judicata rule" under § 2244). It preserves authority to issue the writ in cases where there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court's decision conflicts with this Court's precedents. It goes no farther. Section 2254(d) reflects the view that habeas corpus is a "guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems," not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332, n.5, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment). As a condition for obtaining habeas corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court's ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.*fn11
In applying this standard, this Court reviews the "last reasoned decision" by the state court.*fn12 State appellate court decisions that summarily affirm a lower court's opinion without explanation are presumed to have adopted the reasoning of the lower court.*fn13 This Court gives the presumed decision of the state court the same AEDPA deference that it would give a reasoned decision of the state court.*fn14
Under California's unique habeas procedure, a prisoner who is denied habeas relief in the superior court files a new original petition for relief in the court of appeal. If denied relief by the court of appeal, the defendant has the option of either filing a new original petition for habeas relief or a petition for review of the court of appeal's denial in the California Supreme Court.*fn15
This is considered as the functional equivalent of the appeal process.*fn16 Under AEDPA, the state court's findings of fact are presumed to be correct unless the petitioner rebuts this presumption by clear and convincing evidence.*fn17 This ...