United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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).
forth below, respondent's motion to dismiss should be
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,
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.)
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.)
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.)
Motion to Dismiss
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.
light of petitioner's challenges to a prison disciplinary
hearing and findings, the following legal standards are also
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
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 ...