United States District Court, N.D. California
RANDALL E. ELLIS, Petitioner,
RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden,  Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO
GONZALEZ ROGERS United States District Judge
a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Centinela State
Prison, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging
the constitutionality of disciplinary proceedings against
him. Dkt. 1.
Judge Joseph C. Spero issued an order to show cause on
October 27, 2015, before this matter was reassigned to the
undersigned Judge. Dkt. 5. Magistrate Judge Spero
specifically directed Respondent to file a response to the
petition on or before January 25, 2016, and to address
whether Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992 (9th Cir.
2015) required dismissal of this action, stating as follows:
This Court's jurisdiction over a petition for habeas
relief from a prison disciplinary decision has been called
into question by Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992
(9th Cir. 2015). In his first response to the petition,
respondent shall address, preferably by way of a motion to
dismiss, whether (1) Nettles requires dismissal of
the instant action, and (2) petitioner can or should bring
his claims through a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
Id. at 1.
January 25, 2016, Respondent filed the instant motion to
dismiss on the grounds that that Petitioner's claim does
not state a cognizable basis for federal habeas relief.
Specifically, Respondent argues that habeas corpus is not the
proper remedy for Petitioner's claim because he has not
shown that success in this action will necessarily accelerate
his release from prison. Id. at 3-4. As further
explained below, Respondent has also followed Magistrate
Judge Spero's instructions relating to addressing
Nettles and its relevance to this matter.
Id. at 3. Petitioner has filed an opposition to the
motion, and Respondent has filed a reply. Dkts. 11, 12.
considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court
GRANTS Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.
24, 1983, Petitioner was sentenced to an indeterminate
sentence of twenty-six years to life with the possibility of
parole. Dkt. 1-1 at 6.
filed the instant federal habeas petition on June 16, 2015.
Dkt. 1. In 2013, prison officials at Pelican Bay State
Prison, where Petitioner was previously incarcerated, found
him guilty of a charge of promoting gang activity. Dkt. 1-2
at 2. Petitioner was assessed 30 days of credit loss.
Id. at 7.
contends that his due process rights were violated during the
disciplinary hearing because there was no evidence of his
guilt, he was prevented from defending himself, and the
hearing officer refused to accept his documentary evidence.
Dkt. 1 at 5. In addition, Petitioner argues that the negative
impact of the guilty finding "will have adverse
consequences on Petitioner's chances for parole."
seeks reversal of the guilty finding on the disciplinary
charge, expungement of the disciplinary action, appointment
of counsel, and an evidentiary hearing.