United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Petitioner
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a
petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. Respondent, Warden of Pleasant Valley State Prison, is
represented by Krista Pollard of the office of the California
Attorney General.
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner
is currently in the custody of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation following his January 24, 2012
conviction in Orange County Superior Court for assault with a
semiautomatic firearm and transportation of a controlled
substance with an enhancement for use of a firearm.
(See Answer Ex. 1, ECF No. 13-1.) Petitioner is
serving his resulting determinate sentence of eight years in
prison. (Id.)
On
April 10, 2013, Petitioner was found guilty at a prison
disciplinary hearing of possession of an inmate manufactured
weapon, and assessed a 360 day forfeiture of good conduct
time. (Pet. at 27.) Petitioner alleges that the disciplinary
decision was based on insufficient evidence and that it
violated his due process rights under the 6th and 14th
amendments. (Pet.) Specifically, Petitioner contends: (1)
that the weapon was found in the lower bunk area, which was
not his area of the cell, and (2) that he had only been in
the cell for about a week and the cell had not been properly
searched prior to his placement in the cell. (Id. at
6.)
On
September 27, 2013, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the
Sacramento County Superior Court. The petition was denied in
a reasoned decision on November 1, 2013. (Answer, Exs. 1-2.)
On
December 3, 2013, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the
California Court of Appeal for the Third District. The
appellate court summarily denied the petition on December 12,
2013. (Answer, Exs. 3-4.)
Petitioner
filed a habeas petition to the California Supreme Court on
March 3, 2014. The petition was summarily denied on May 14,
2014. (Answer, Exs. 5-6.)
Petitioner
filed the instant federal habeas petition on August 8, 2014.
Respondent filed an answer to the petition on October 29,
2014. (See generally Answer, ECF No. 13.) Petitioner
did not file a traverse. The matter stands ready for
adjudication.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On
February 16, 2013, Correctional Officer Hansen conducted a
random cell search of Petitioner’s cell. (Pet. at 24.)
Upon searching, Officer Hansen found an inmate manufactured
weapon wrapped in tissue paper and inserted into the metal
bracing of the bunkbed. (Id.) The weapon appeared to
be an eight inch piece of Plexiglas sharpened on one end and
wrapped with masking tape as a handle on the other.
(Id. at 25.)
Petitioner
was charged with possession of an inmate manufactured weapon.
(Pet. at 24-27.) He was provided a rules violation report on
February 25, 2013. (Id.) On the same date,
Petitioner waived the right to assistance of an investigative
employee. (Id.) Petitioner did not make any
statements prior to the disciplinary hearing or request the
presence of any witnesses. (Id.)
Petitioner
appeared at the disciplinary hearing on April 10, 2013. (Pet.
at 24-27.) In his defense, Petitioner claimed he was not
guilty and stated “I had no knowledge of that. I had
just moved in.” (Id.) After considering all
the relevant evidence, the Senior Hearing Officer
(“SHO”), Lieutenant S. Quirarte, found that the
greater weight of the evidence supported the finding that
Petitioner committed the prohibited act of possession of an
inmate manufactured weapon. (Id.) The decision was
based on a report of the officer who conducted the search of
the cell including five pictures of the weapon and the
location in the cell where the weapon was found.
(Id.) Petitioner was sanctioned a disallowance of
360 days good conduct time were imposed. (Id.)
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Jurisdiction
Relief
by way of a writ of habeas corpus extends to a prisoner under
a judgment of a state court if the custody violates the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3);
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 fn.7 (2000).
Petitioner asserts that he suffered a violation of his right
to due process as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. While
the disciplinary hearing occurred at Folsom State Prison,
Petitioner was incarcerated at the Pleasant Valley State
Prison at the time of filing this petition, which is located
...