United States District Court, C.D. California
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
JEAN
ROSENBLUTH U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PROCEEDINGS
On
December 21, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody. He also
consented to having a U.S. Magistrate Judge conduct all
further proceedings in his case, including entering final
judgment. On February 12, 2016, Respondent filed an Answer
and a memorandum of points and authorities and consented to
proceed before a Magistrate Judge. Petitioner did not file a
reply.
For the
reasons discussed below, the Court denies the Petition and
dismisses this action with prejudice.
PETITIONER’S
CLAIMS
I.
Insufficient evidence supported the disciplinary-hearing
officer’s finding that Petitioner possessed a hazardous
tool under Prohibited Act Code 108. (Pet. at 3.)
II.
Code 108 is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as
applied to Petitioner. (Id.)
III.
Petitioner was denied equal protection because he was
disciplined under Code 108 while other inmates possessing the
same device have been disciplined under Code 305, a lesser
violation. (Id. at 4.)
BACKGROUND
Petitioner
is a federal prisoner housed at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Lompoc. (Pet. at 2.) He is serving a 240-month
sentence imposed in the District of New Mexico for conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
(Answer, Cruz Decl. ¶ 3, Attach. 1 at 13.) Assuming
Petitioner earns all available good-conduct credit, his
current projected release date is August 11, 2021. (Answer,
Cruz Decl. ¶ 3, Attach. 2 at 19.)
On
April 10, 2014, a prison staff member searched a locker
assigned to Petitioner and found an improvised heating device
(colloquially known as a “stinger”) hidden inside
a sock behind some folded clothes. (Answer, Cruz Decl. ¶
4, Attach. 3 at 21-22; see Pet. at 3.) That day, the
staff member prepared an incident report, charging Petitioner
with violating Prohibited Act Code 108, possession of a
hazardous tool. (Answer, Cruz Decl. ¶ 4, Attach. 3 at
21); see 28 C.F.R. § 541.3, Table 1. Petitioner
received the incident report and was advised of his rights
the same day. (Answer, Cruz Decl., Attach. 3 at 21, 23.)
On
April 15, 2014, Petitioner appeared before the Unit
Discipline Committee, which referred the charge to the
Discipline Hearing Officer for further hearing. (Id.
at 21.)
On
April 16, 2014, DHO J.L. Spaulding conducted
Petitioner’s disciplinary hearing. (Answer, Cruz Decl.,
Attach. 4 at 24, 27.) Petitioner waived his right to a staff
representative, denied the charge, and did not call any
witnesses. (Id. at 24.) At the hearing, Petitioner
stated that he was “in Education when [the incident]
took place” and someone else “threw [the stinger]
in [his] locker, ” which was “always open.”
(Id.)
After
reviewing the evidence, the DHO found that Petitioner had
violated Code 108. (Id. at 25.) The DHO based his
decision on the staff member’s written report;
Petitioner’s statements to the investigator, the
discipline committee, and the DHO; and photographic evidence
of the device found in his locker. (Id.) He found
that whether Petitioner was in “Education” at the
time had “no bearing on the incident as there [was] no
requirement that [he] be present for a search.”
(Id. at 26.) The DHO explained that
Petitioner’s claim that his locker was not locked was
“not a valid defense” because he could have
bought a lock from the commissary; even if the locker was
unsecured, that did not relieve him of his responsibility to
keep his area free of contraband. (Id.) The DHO
found not credible Petitioner’s claim that someone else
must have put the device in his locker, noting that it was
...