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.

Calloway v. R. Davis

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 4, 2018

JAMISI CALLOWAY, Petitioner,
v.
R. DAVIS, Respondent.

          FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. Introduction

         Petitioner is a state prisoner incarcerated at the California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”) in Stockton. Petitioner paid the filing fee. Petitioner proceeds without counsel with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c).

         As set forth below, respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted.

         II. Background

         Petitioner is serving an indeterminate sentence of 30 years, 4 months to life in state prison. (ECF Nos. 1 at 2; 16-1 at 2.) On March 17, 2016, petitioner was found guilty of a prison disciplinary violation, battery on a peace officer, [1] and assessed a 360-day loss of custody credit. (ECF No. 1-2 at 1-4.) Petitioner challenged the prison disciplinary conviction through all three levels of administrative review. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2-25.)

         Subsequently, petitioner filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Marin County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court; all of these petitions were denied. (ECF No. 1 at 7-10.)

         On April 6, 2017, an institutional classification committee released petitioner from maximum custody and suspended the remainder of the 42-month security housing unit (“SHU”) term. (ECF No. 16-2 at 4.)

         III. Motion to Dismiss

         A. Legal Standards

         Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. . . .” Id. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has referred to a respondent's motion to dismiss as a request for the court to dismiss under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. See, e.g., O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (1991). Accordingly, the court reviews respondent's motion to dismiss pursuant to its authority under Rule 4.

         In light of petitioner's challenges to a prison disciplinary hearing and findings, the following legal standards are also applicable.

         It is well established that prisoners subjected to disciplinary action are entitled to certain procedural protections under the Due Process Clause, although they are not entitled to the full panoply of rights afforded to criminal defendants. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974); see also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985); United States v. Segal, 549 F.2d 1293, 1296-99 (9th Cir.) (observing that prison disciplinary proceedings command the least amount of due process along the prosecution continuum), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 919 (1977).

         A prisoner is entitled to advance written notice of the charges against him as well as a written statement of the evidence relied on by prison officials and the reasons for the disciplinary action. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563. A prisoner also has a right to a hearing at which he may “call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.” Id. at 566; see also Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 495 (1985). An investigative officer may be required to assist prisoners who are illiterate or whose case is particularly complex. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570. The disciplinary hearing must be conducted by a person or body that is “sufficiently ...


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.