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.

Mallet v. Uribe

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

May 31, 2013

JEROME EVAN MALLET, Petitioner,
v.
DOMINGO URIBE, Respondent.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 15)

STANLEY A. BOONE, District Judge.

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

I.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

On April 14, 2009, Petitioner received a prison disciplinary violation for fighting. (Mot. Ex. 1, CDC-115, dated 4/14/09 [Rules Violation Report].)

Petitioner challenged the violation through the administrative appeal process. The appeal was denied at the director's level on September 29, 2009.

On May 2, 2010, Petitioner filed a state petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Kern County Superior Court.[1] The petition was denied on July 16, 2010.

On March 27, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District.[2] The petition was denied on April 6, 2011.

Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court on May 11, 2011, which was summarily denied on January 11, 2012.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on January 30, 2012, and the petition was transferred to this Court on January 9, 2013.

In the instant petition, Petitioner contends that prison staff violated his due process rights at a 2009 prison disciplinary hearing by finding him guilty of fighting, denying him the opportunity to present testimony of a witness, and assessing a ninety-day credit forfeiture. Petitioner further contends that retention of the rules violation in his central file subjects him to "aggregated consequences" from the Board of Parole Hearings.

On March 25, 2013, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely, as moot, and for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. ...


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.