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.

Jones v. E. Valenzuela

United States District Court, Central District of California

November 3, 2014

LEANDER LEROY JONES JR., Petitioner,
v.
E. VALENZUELA, WARDEN, Respondents

For Leander Leroy Jones, Jr, Petitioner: Charles Chung, CAAG - Attorney General Office, Los Angeles, CA.

For E Valenzuela, Respondent: Charles Chung, CAAG - Attorney General Office, Los Angeles, CA.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PATRICK J. WALSH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Hon. Percy Anderson, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the Petition be denied and the action dismissed with prejudice.

I.

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner is a state prisoner. On March 17, 2011, Corrections Officer J. A. De Franco was conducting a random pat down search when he discovered a bag of tobacco on Petitioner. (Lodged Doc. No. 1.) When De Franco asked if Petitioner had anything else on him, Petitioner swore at De Franco and told him to finish the pat down. (Lodged Doc. No. 1.) De Franco placed Petitioner in handcuffs and began to escort him to a holding cell. (Lodged Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner then told De Franco, " Take these handcuffs off me, I'm going to fuck you up." (Lodged Doc. No. 1.)

Petitioner was notified that he had been charged with threatening to commit battery on staff. (Lodged Doc. No. 1.) He was afforded a disciplinary hearing at which he appeared and denied the charges, claiming that De Franco was lying. (Lodged Doc. No. 1.) The Disciplinary Hearing Officer issued a written decision, finding Petitioner guilty and explaining why. (Lodged Doc. No. 1.) He sanctioned Petitioner with, among other things, the loss of 60 days good time credits. (Lodged Doc. No. 1.)

Petitioner appealed through the prison appeal system and lost. He then sought relief in the state courts via habeas corpus and lost there, too. This action followed.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review in this case is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim--
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the ...

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.