The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ROBERTY KELLEY, No. 2:22-cv-00370-WBS-CKD P
12 Petitioner,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 KATHLEEN ALLISON,
15 Respondent.
16
17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently pending before the court is respondent's motion to
19 dismiss the petition on the basis that the claims for relief are not cognizable in this federal habeas
20 action. ECF No. 10. Petitioner has filed an opposition to the motion. ECF No. 11. For the
21 reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends granting respondent's motion to dismiss.
22 I. Factual and Procedural History
23 Petitioner is serving a 15 to life sentence following his conviction for first degree murder
24 in the San Diego County Superior Court. ECF No. 1 at 1, 44. The habeas corpus application,
25 however, challenges petitioner’s 2019 prison disciplinary violation for battery causing serious
26 injury. See ECF No. 1 at 69, 73-85 (Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) and Disciplinary Hearing
27 Results). As a result of this disciplinary violation, petitioner lost 360 days of custody credits
28 which are not restorable. ECF No. 1 at 84. Petitioner raises several due process challenges to the
1 prison disciplinary hearing and a separate sufficiency of the evidence challenge to the finding that
2 he was guilty of battery. ECF No. 1 at 28-42. Petitioner also contends that this disciplinary
3 conviction is capable of being challenged in a federal habeas application because it disqualified
4 him from early parole consideration and thus a speedier release from incarceration. See ECF No.
5 1 at 153 (Administrative Review Decision Form by the Board of Parole Hearings); see also
6 California Penal Code § 3041.5(b)(4). By way of relief, petitioner requests that the administrative
7 finding of guilt be vacated, the disciplinary conviction be purged from his central prison file, and
8 his custody credits and prior custody level be restored. ECF No. 1 at 15.
9 II. Motion to Dismiss
10 In a motion to dismiss filed on April 22, 2022, respondent asserts that petitioner's claims
11 for relief are not cognizable in the pending federal habeas action because success on his claims
12 would not implicate the fact or duration of his confinement. ECF No. 10 at 3 (citing Nettles v.
13 Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). According to respondent, because
14 petitioner’s actual release date will be determined by the California Board of Parole Hearings, “an
15 order reversing the prison disciplinary [finding] and restoring his custody credits will not
16 necessarily result in a shorter period of incarceration.” ECF No. 10 at 2. Respondent asks the
17 court to dismiss the habeas petition in its entirety. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
18 2254 Cases.
19 Petitioner’s opposition to the motion explains the relevant case law differentiating
20 between cognizable claims in a federal habeas corpus petition versus those raised in a federal civil
21 rights action. ECF No. 11. According to petitioner, his minimum eligible parole date (“MEPD”)
22 was July 28, 2005 and his last parole hearing was on December 13, 2018, resulting in a three year
23 denial due to his lack of written parole and relapse prevention plans. ECF No. 11 at 3.
24 Petitioner’s next parole hearing was not advanced based on his 2019 disciplinary conviction.
25 ECF No. 11 at 3; see also ECF No. 1 at 153. Based on this denial of an earlier parole suitability
26 hearing, petitioner argues that his claims do affect the duration of his confinement, and are,
27 therefore, cognizable on habeas. Id.
28 ////
1 III. Analysis
2 While the parties agree on the relevant legal standards to be applied in this case, they
3 dispute the application of those standards to the claims raised in petitioner’s habeas corpus
4 application. In Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (2016), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
5 concluded that a prisoner’s § 2254 petition challenging a prison disciplinary violation did not fall
6 within the “core of habeas corpus” and therefore could only be challenged in a § 1983 action.
7 The Court reasoned that “[s]uccess on the merits of Nettles’s claim would not necessarily lead to
8 immediate or speedier release because the expungement of the challenged disciplinary violation
9 would not necessarily lead to a grant of parole.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 934-35. “A rules violation
10 is merely one of the factors shedding light on whether a prisoner ‘constitutes a current threat to
11 public safety’” so as to justify granting him or her parole. Id. at 935. While petitioner argues to
12 the contrary, the record evidence in this case supports the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit’s
13 decision in Nettles. Although petitioner has been eligible for parole since 2005, he was last
14 denied parole in 2018 because he lacked a written parole and relapse prevention plan. ECF No.
15 11 at 3. Therefore, petitioner’s lack of a disciplinary violation in 2018 was not sufficient, by
16 itself, to be granted parole. Petitioner submits that vacating his disciplinary violation, in
17 combination with his youthful offender status, would be sufficient for him to be granted parole.
18 However, this court is not in the business of prognosticating what factors would make a
19 difference in a state parole suitability hearing, nor should it be according to the decision in
20 Nettles, 830 F.3d at 934.1 Applying the bright line rule articulated in Nettles, petitioner’s claims
21 challenging his 2019 prison disciplinary violation are not cognizable in the present habeas corpus
22 action. The undersigned therefore recommends granting respondent’s motion to dismiss based on
23 lack of jurisdiction.2
24
1 The Ninth Circuit adopted the “core of habeas” standard articulated in Skinner v. Switzer, 562
25
U.S. 521 (2011) because it did “not require… guess[ing] at the discretionary decisions of state
officials in order to determine whether an action sounds in habeas or § 1983….” Nettles v.
26
Grounds, 830 F.3d at 934.
27
2 The court recognizes its discretion to convert petitioner’s § 2254 application to a § 1983 action,
28 however, it declines to exercise its discretion in this case. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d at
1 IV. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party
2 The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not
3 intended as legal advice.
4 The undersigned has concluded that the motion to dismiss should be granted because the
5 relief you are seeking would not lead to speedier release from custody which is the purpose of the
6 writ of habeas corpus.
7 If you disagree with this recommendation, you have 14 days to explain why it is not the
8 correct result. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
9 Recommendations.” The district judge will then review the case and make the final decision.
10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
11 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) be granted; and,
12 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be dismissed for lack
13 of jurisdiction.
14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
16 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
17 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
18 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner
19 may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of
20 the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district
21 court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
22
23 936 (stating that “a district court may construe a petition for habeas corpus to plead a cause of
action under § 1983 after notifying and obtaining informed consent from the prisoner”).
24 However, provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”) complicate a court’s
decision to recharacterize a habeas petition as a civil rights complaint. Due to the PLRA's filing
25
fee requirements, its provisions requiring sua sponte screening of complaints, and its limits on the
number of actions a prisoner may be permitted to file in forma pauperis, a prisoner should not be
26
obligated to proceed with a civil rights action unless he or she clearly expresses a desire to do so.
27 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 & 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. The court’s recommendation to grant
respondent’s motion to dismiss is without prejudice to filing a separate § 1983 action should
28 petitioner choose to do so.
1 | applicant). Where, as here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of
2 || appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it
3 || debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of
4 || reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
5 || constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v.
6 || McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Any response to the objections shall be served and filed
7 || within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
8 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
9 || Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10 | Dated: August 18, 2022 / ae □□ / a Ly a
i CAROLYN K DELANEY
12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18 12/kell0370.mtd.RVR.docx
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28