United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division
Kevin W King, Petitioner, Pro se, Los Angeles, CA.
For Los Angeles County Sheriff, Respondent: Amber A Logan, Nelson and Fulton, Los Angeles, CA.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VICTOR B. KENTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Andrew J.
Guilford, United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.
On June 10, 2014, Kevin William King (hereinafter referred to as " Petitioner"), who is proceeding pro se, filed a document entitled " Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" (hereinafter " Petition" or " Pet"). As discussed below, Petitioner alleges that his due process rights were violated when he was placed in disciplinary segregation, allegedly without a proper hearing, while he was in pre-trial custody at a jail administered by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. On July 21, 2014, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition (hereinafter " Motion to Dismiss" or " MTD") on the grounds that: (1) Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the Petition, and that (2) the Petition is moot because Petitioner has been released from custody and will not suffer any ongoing " collateral consequences" from the time he was in disciplinary segregation. On August 10, 2014, Petitioner filed an Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (hereinafter " Opposition" or " Opp"). On August 19, 2014, Respondent filed a Reply to Petitioner's Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (" Reply").
Briefing having now been deemed completed, it is recommended that the Petition be denied and this case be dismissed.
A. Petitioner's Arrest, Detention, Segregation, and Release.
At the time Petitioner filed the instant Petition on June 10, 2014, he was apparently in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department at the Men's Central Jail in Los Angeles (hereinafter " the Jail"). (See, e.g., Petition at 2; Motion to Dismiss, Declaration of Eliel Teixeira, Deputy Sheriff, at page 6 attached [hereinafter " Sheriff's Declaration" ].)
The Sheriff's Declaration attached to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss states that Petitioner was arrested by the Santa Monica Police on January 11, 2014; and on January 12, 2014, he was transferred to the custody of the Los Angeles County Jail and held in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (See MTD, Sheriff's Declaration attached.) Petitioner states that his " charge of violating California Penal Code § 666(a) is punishable by 1 year in a County Jail or [sic] pursuant to Penal Code § 1170(h) [sic]." (See Petition at 8.) Thus, it appears that Petitioner was in pre-trial detention facing a charge of petty theft with three or more prior petty theft convictions. (See P.C. § 666(a).) Petitioner states that his Superior Court case number was " SA086218." (Petition at 4.)
An exhibit attached to the Petition bears a heading reading " Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Inmate Discipline Report -- Narrative" (hereinafter " Discipline Report"; see Petition, Exhibit 2); and that Discipline Report relates how, on May 16, 2014, while Petitioner was being transported to the Jail law library, he became uncooperative and refused to comply with orders from jail guards. (See Petition, Exhibit 2.) The Discipline Report states that " I/M King refused to stand up and be escorted to 4500 module pending DRB review." (Petition, Exhibit 2.) Petitioner declares in a Declaration in support of his Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss that the " 4500 module" is where inmates are held for disciplinary segregation at the Jail. (See Opposition, Declaration at 7.) The Discipline Report states that " [d]ue to I/M King's disruptive behavior he delayed operations in the law library, main hallway, and the 3000 floor for approximately two hours." (Petition, Exhibit 2 at 1.)
It appears that Petitioner was in disciplinary segregation from May 16, 2014 until at least June 10, 2014, because Petitioner states in the Petition, which was filed on June 10, 2014, that he " is currently in disciplinary segregation incident to his [sic] May 16, 2014 placement therein." (Petition at 4.) The Sheriff's Declaration declares that Petitioner was released from " custody" on July 14, 2014. (See MTD, Sheriff's Declaration at 6.) The Court is uncertain exactly how long Petitioner remained in disciplinary segregation, or if he remained in disciplinary segregation until his release from the jail on July 14, 2014; and apparently neither Petitioner nor Respondent provide ...