“habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a 24 [section] 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not 25 necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”
How later courts described this case
- “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a 24 [section] 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not 25 necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 ANDREW R. LOPEZ, Case No. 21-cv-00412-JST
8 Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A
9 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
10 JAMES ROBERTSON, APPEALABILITY
11 Respondent.
12
13 Petitioner, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison,1 filed this pro se action seeking a writ of
14 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition2 is now before the Court for review
15 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
16 States District Courts.
17 DISCUSSION
18 A. Standard of Review
19 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in
20
21
1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to correct the spelling of Respondent’s last name. The warden
of Pelican Bay State Prison is James Robertson, as specified in the petition. The Clerk shall
22
change the name from Robinson to Robertson.
2 Petitioner has appeared before this Court before. He has filed at least two civil rights action in
23
this Court: (1) C No. 17-2087 PJH, Lopez v. Olson, et al., which alleged that Plaintiff was
receiving inadequate medical care at Pelican Bay State Prison and was dismissed because Plaintiff
24
failed to pay the filing fee and was not eligible for in forma pauperis status because he had
suffered three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and (2) C No. C No. 08-4543 MHP, Lopez
25
v. Florez, et al., which was transferred to the Eastern District of California. He has also filed at
least four habeas petitions, including this one: (1) C No. 20-cv-8988 JST, Lopez v. Robertson,
26
which challenged disciplinary violations issued on July 18, 2018 and February 26, 2019, and
which was dismissed for lack of habeas jurisdiction without prejudice to re-filing as a civil rights
27
action; (2) C No. 04-0993 MHP, Lopez v. Scribner, which was transferred to the Eastern District
1 custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in
2 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v.
3 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing
4 the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the
5 application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
6 B. Petitioner’s Claims
7 The petition challenges a rules violation for fighting received by Petitioner, arising out of
8 an incident on November 18, 2018, when Petitioner and inmate Ramirez were attacked by inmate
9 Raper. Petitioner was found guilty of this rules violation. Petitioner alleges that the Parole Board
10 “deems the guilty finding adversely.” ECF No. 1 at 5. Petitioner argues that this guilty finding
11 violated due process, violated the Equal Protection Clause, denied him the right to defend himself,
12 and that the hearing officer falsified the record. See generally ECF No. 1. Petitioner seeks
13 expungement of the disciplinary violation.
14 C. Dismissal for Lack of Habeas Jurisdiction
15 “‘Federal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a
16 petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871,
17 Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the lawfulness of confinement or
18 to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus.’” Hill v. McDonough, 547
19 U.S. 573, 579 (2006) (quoting Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)). Habeas is the
20 “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner who seeks “‘immediate or speedier release’” from
21 confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544
22 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); see Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740, 747 (1998). A challenge to a
23 disciplinary finding that resulted in an assessment of time credits must be brought in habeas if
24 reinstatement of the time credits would “necessarily spell speedier release.” Id. at 525.
25 Here, habeas jurisdiction is lacking because success on Petitioner’s claims would not
26 shorten or end his sentence. Petitioner is serving an indeterminate life term with the possibility of
27 parole. Lopez v. Calderon, No. F049556, 2007 WL 257965, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2007).
1 would favorably impact his parole eligibility, this argument also fails to state a claim for habeas
2 jurisdiction. Under California law, in determining parole suitability, the parole board must
3 consider all “relevant, reliable information available.” 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 2281(b). A
4 disciplinary infraction would be a relevant but not dispositive factor. See generally id. Similarly,
the lack of disciplinary infractions during incarceration, while relevant, is also not dispositive of
5
parole suitability. See id. (requiring parole board to consider inter alia prisoner’s social history,
6
past and present mental state, past criminal history). The Ninth Circuit has specifically found that
7
there is no habeas jurisdiction for claims challenging a disciplinary finding on the grounds that the
8
disciplinary finding affects the petitioner’s parole suitability finding. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d
9
922, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Similar to Petitioner, the prisoner-petitioner in Nettles was
10
serving a life sentence and had challenged a prison disciplinary decision that he alleged was
11
impeding his ability to be granted parole. The Ninth Circuit concluded that habeas jurisdiction
12
was absent due to the fact that success on the merits “would not necessarily lead to immediate or
13
speedier release because the expungement of the challenged disciplinary violation would not
14
necessarily lead to a grant of parole.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 934-35. Under state law, the inmate
15
had to be found suitable for parole before he would be granted parole; “the presence of a
16
disciplinary infraction does not compel the denial of parole, nor does an absence of an infraction
17
compel the grant of parole.” Id. at 935. Parole decisions are based on many factors, prison
18
disciplinary decisions being just one of them. Id. Because Petitioner is serving an indeterminate
19 life term, the Court finds that there is no habeas jurisdiction for his due process claims relating to
20 his two disciplinary infractions. Nettles, 830 F.3d at 927, 934-35. The Court DISMISSES this
21 petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to
22 Petitioner filing a new civil rights action asserting his challenges to the disciplinary decisions. See
23 Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a
24 [section] 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not
25 necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”).
26 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
27 The Court concludes that no “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
1 || debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
2 || U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
3 CONCLUSION
4 For the reasons set forth above, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED, and
5 a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner filing a
6 || new civil rights action asserting his challenges to the disciplinary decisions. The Clerk shall send
7 || Petitioner two copies of the civil rights complaint form. The Clerk is also directed to correct the
8 || spelling of Respondent’s last name to Robertson. The Clerk shall close the file.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 Dated: August 23, 2021
11
JON S. TIGAR'
12 nited States District Judge
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28