Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Robert Ryan Snyder, Petitioner v. California

No.

&/1/

iSuftr&mrt' (jouri/ oftAo 9/rt&b&d

ROBERT R. SNYDER,

Petitioner,

vs.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Respondent

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To the California Supreme Court

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ROBERT R SNYDER, In Pro Se

D.O.C. No. AC9136, RJDCF

480 Alta Road

San Diego, CA 92179

(619) 661-7862

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Has California’s justice system forgotten what

was taught by this Court’s holding in Wilson v. Seiter

[501 U.S. 294 (1991)]. (Regarding 8th Amendment

inquiries requiring only minimal showing of

“...specific deprivation of single human need must

exist..,”) as it allowed its department officials to

deprive prisoners of manifold necessities for months?

2. By issuing a summary denial, did the state fail to

accord petitioner’s federal constitutionally

guaranteed rights in this matter?

3. Did the state courts violate their Article 6 oath by

their failure to resolve petitioner’s meritorious

claims?

4. Does the 14th Amendment due process demand

non-silent regulations regarding lockdown, a key

function within the operation of a state prison?

5. In light of petitioner’s liberty interest being at

stake, should that require CDCR’s rule making body

to draft a regulation governing usages of lockdown

procedures to explain for: 1) the cause for initiation

of the lockdown, 2) duties during and after a

lockdown and 3) key considerations overall that

would facilitate improvements in the determinative

process, thereby avoiding any future occurrences of harm

caused by indiscretions.

"!

ii

6. Did the 9th circuit court of appeals wrongly decide

Norwood v. Vance as it may relate to Petitioner’s habeas

claims of being denied adequate outdoor exercise?

7. Should this Court more often question the wisdom

behind Correction’s Agencies unconstitutional

decisions . ., thus reviving speculation into age old

deference for modern day, high-tech complications?

8. Should widespread judicial standards be

established because of the enormous weight of Civil

Rights violations encompassed inside arbitrarily

determined, month(s) long lockdown situations?

9. Is the state’s compulsive use of sub silentio

designed to prevent Federal Authority from

acquiring a thorough view of material issues—the

prerequisite for a full quorum discussion?

10. Should the initiating of Lockdowns exceeding 72

hours become a decision solely entrusted to the

prison’s nearest Superior Court having experience in

handling judgments of such astounding consequence?

11. Does this example of the abusive usage of

lockdown by a Warden demonstrated below, pose a

serious enough risk to prisoner’s health—pro tanto it

affects all inmates in a facility—to generate concern

by this court for the instant cause?

12. Despite petitioner’s innovative proposal, is this

yet another example of California turning a dull

heart to another great way to get on the fast track

towards lasting improvements and soften the impact

of some of the more alarming abuses that distract

iii

focus away from attempting to remedy a nearly

dysfunctional system already burdened down by the

weight of overcrowding?

13. Does the substance of this matter expose

California’s prison system as routinely creating

overly restrictive customs—those founded upon pretextual goals that violate conditions precedent when

the “safety and security” smokescreen is being

announced much too often?

14. Did the California Supreme Court deliberately

refuse to acknowledge correspondence from

Certiorari petitioner because it feared the extra

strength of merit especially the Plata implications

and the retaliation allegation?

15. Did the states’ decision to deny relief imply bias

derived from petitioner’s numerous critiques of its

prison conditions in the past?

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI . .

1

OPINIONS AND ORDERS

1

Opinions and Orders from the California state

courts.....................................................

1

JURISDICTION

1

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

2

REASONS FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI . .

5

ARGUMENT

7

CONCLUSION

11

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

13

VERIFICATION

13

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

APPENDIX

Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

California Supreme Court, June 12, 2019.. App. 1

Order Denying Petition For Writ of Mandate,

Second District Court of Appeal, Division

Four of California, Feb. 08, 2018............... App. 2

Order Denying Writ of Mandate, Superior

Court of L.A. County, Nov. 28, 2017 . . App. 3-4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

FEDERAL CASES

Brown v. Plata (2011) 179 L.ed. 2d 967,

493 U.S. at pg. 978

................

10

Camps v. Nutter, 2017 U.S. Dist., Lexis

No. 98932 .................................

7

Hutto v. Finney 57 L.Ed 2d 522, 538 (1978). .

8

Milliken v. Bradley 433 U.S. 267 (1977) ...

6

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES- Continued

Page

Norwood v. Vance, 572 F.3d 626, 630

ii, 9

(9th Cir. 2008).................

Palmer v. Richards, 364 F.3d 60

(2d Cir. 2004)

....

10

Roberts v. Mahoning County, (ND Ohio,

2007) 495 F. Supp. 2d 719 . .

6

Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127

(9th Cir. 2013)......................

7

Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293,

132, L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)................. ... 10

Spain v. Procuiner, 600 F.2d 189, 199-200

(9th Cir. 1979)....................................

4,9

Turner v. Safley (1987), 482 U.S. 78, 87-92 . . 12

Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d 969, 972

(9th Cir. 2003) ......

Wilson v. Seiter. (1991) 501 U.S. 294

9

. .

i

Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539, 542. . 10

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES- Continued

Page

FEDERAL STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a)

1

18 U.S.C. § 3626 and 28 U.S.C. § 2284 .... 6

FEDERAL RULES

U.S. Sup. Ct. Rules, 10(c), 13, 30

. 1

1

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Robert Snyder respectfully petitions for a writ

of certiorari to review the denial of a Petition for writ

of habeas corpus by the California Supreme Court.

OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW

Opinions and Orders from the California

state courts.

The June 12, 2019 document from the

California Supreme Court denying petitioner’s

habeas corpus (Case No. S253903) is attached at

App. 1. Petitioner sought relief from the California

Court of Appeal only to have his petition, Case No.

B287811 denied by Order on February 08, 2018. The

Order is attached at App. 2. The November 28, 2017

Order from Los Angeles Superior Court initially

denying relief in this matter is attached at App. 3-4.

JURISDICTION

This Petition is authorized by United States

Supreme Court rules, Rule 10(c) and is timely filed

in accordance with Rule 13 and 30. This action is

also 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) relative.

2

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

This pro se Petitioner’s case involves issues

related to the First, Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner originally mailed a Review Request

to the California Supreme Court (hereafter CSC)

concerning this matter, on February 18th, 2018

having complied with Cal Rules of Court (hereafter,

CRC), Rule 8.500. Petitioner possess documentary

and photographic evidence to the effect it was timely

submitted to FedEx. FedEx documents and a follow­

up phone call confirmed delivery to the Court.

Petitioner waited patiently for 8 months

before drafting a demand for a ruling on October 27,

2018. The clerk returned this document unfiled and

in unison denied the review petition’s existence. A

phone call to the clerk at CSC generated an

incredible story about what might have happened to

the document. Without hesitation, petitioner

believed this Court would see his offer of proof and

still review certiorari in defiance of CSC’s reprobate

clerk. California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, (hereafter CDCR) celebrated and our

programming was on and off partial lockdown for

months without good cause or other recourse.

3

Petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus in CSC on

January 18, 2019. That Habeas was summarily

denied June 12th 2019. Utilizing a go for broke

approach to procedurally bar these claims, a timely

Certiorari follows.

The CSC knows what a heavy obstacle is,

nothing like the inordinate delay. Their Rules

impose strict time frames for petitioners seeking

review. CSC’s clerks and jurists certainly have a

disciplined understanding or what inmates confront

while struggling to shoulder the burdens placed by

large passages of time trekking the arduous road

called “seeking justice.” Despite this, we can bear

witness to their occasionally working an injustice

upon a load bearing pleader, something incompatible

with their pledge to defend the constitution. The

non-exemplary delay techniques of what’s above

demonstrated to CSC’s discredit.., should not pose

an exception to the crushing weight of this court’s

earlier decrees.

CSC’s summary or mixed denial disclaiming

responsibility for petitioner’s case behind

“exhausting ‘available’ remedies,” was amusing and

suspicious... giving rise indefinitely to various

important questions certainly were petitioner

alleging an attempt to starve him, no court would

request compliance with a grievance or claims

procedure. However in the case here side bar the

instant party in pursuit of truth avers he was

starved of many fundamental requirements intrinsic

4

to constitutionally approved incarceration: fresh air,

outdoor exercise, and peace and quiet necessary to

competently litigate. In Spain v. Procuiner, 600 F.2d

189, 199-200 (9th Cir. 1979) the denial of outdoor

exercise violates the 8th amendment proscription

against cruel and unusual punishment.

Interestingly, the Trial Court docketed

petitioner’s case and responded appropriately to his

pleadings in 11 days as it was captioned with the

words; “Emergency Order Requested.” Accordingly,

petitioner’s case was given due regard also by

California’s intermediate Appellate Court as they

required only 9 days and they respected due process

procedures. It was then disappointing to see how

the only gamesmanship, came from the state’s high

court.

The protections of the 14th Amendment

extend to state prison, particularly with respect to

the deprivation of a fundamental right. A prolonged

prison lockdown interferes with every constitutional

mandate.

On every occasion I declare the truth

unfettered from bias. The relevant lower Court

proceedings plainly explained to California’s Justice

System how its corrections department ignored

notices that a serious risk towards a large inmate

population exists. Instead of ameliorating the risk

posed, facility officials at CSP-Los Angeles went off

the deep end and responded by vindictively

instituting retaliatory measures in direct connection

to the first court filing in Antelope Valley Superior

Court. An abundance of caution to abate the

5

excessive risk to the E.O.P. inmates was not used;

instead they lengthened the period of lockdown and

intensified the appurtenant restrictions attendant to

the confinement such as being walked in iron

bracelets to the shower and back and denied outdoor

exercise.

The California Courts denied the merit of the

matter while keeping their basis for those upsetting

decisions a secret. The denials moreover highlight

the outrageous results of still more shocking legal

contradictions upheld while CSC negligently

supervised the coordinated indiscretions by the lower

court.

REASONS FOR GRANTING CERTIORARI

As odd as it may sound, this case explores but

one of perhaps a hundred different illegal customs

routinely implemented by the CDCR. Certainly

petitioner identified the usage of extended

confinement of prisoners (many with serious mental

disorders) as a first priority when he used all his

time in the cell during November and December of

2017 to write the mandate request for Antelope

Valley’s local court.

Overcrowding (starting decades ago),

presented California’s corrections officials with both

a challenge and/or an opportunity. In some ways

they utilized lockdowns as an opportunity to

6

implement a new species of cruel punishments.

Twenty-three ‘hits’ appeared after typing “lockdown

as punishment” into a basic search engine licensed

by Matthew Bender®. Not all of these controversies

originated in California’s Courts. The acts that

formed the basis of petitioner’s cause occurred

shortly after he filed case No. 17-614 in this Court.

CDCR’s offensive business of prolonged,

absurdly determined lockdown or otherwise casual

usage of highly restrictive, illegal customs has

become a recurrent nuisance as these are being used

as a weapon.

Had CSC taken more than a moment to

consider reviewing this matter, they would have

discovered this case: Roberts v. Mahoning County,

(ND Ohio, 2007) 495 F. Supp. 2d 719. From what is

gathered there, a 3-Judge Court pursuant to (18

U.S.C. § 3626 et seq.) and (28 U.S.C. § 2284), entered

a consent judgment with a stipulated population

order. State and local authorities have the primary

responsibility for curing the constitutional violation,

according to Milliken v. Bradley 433 U.S. 267 (1977).

Certainly Certiorari would allow California’s officials

to return to their conscious senses and adopt a

similar, balanced approach towards discharging

public duty. Currently, the Warden need only consult

the Department Secretary before initiating a

lockdown. CDCR’s Department Secretary retired

recently, leaving a wake of scandals exposing

medical neglect, torture and murder, according to

Justia.com.

7

The most insipid variety of summary denial is

what CSC did below; they blatantly refused to

acknowledge the proof that FedEx delivered the

document to their clerk on time. They claimed to

have never received the document. This sort of

illegal stunt causes inmates a crippling frustration.

ARGUMENT

Many unpublished opinions exist throughout

the District Courts across America, alleging facts

framed around lockdown and its damaging effects.

One such instance out of hundreds is: Camps v.

Nutter, 2017 U.S. Dist., Lexis No. 98932. The words

“nearly continuous lockdowns” were recorded in the

opinion. I would suggest that authority exists

somewhere to support petitioner’s point that the

contents pending determination deserve review via

Certiorari on the grounds that reckless prison

administrations are an important and compelling

concern. Hopefully they are not being lulled by the

guards into causing such forms of privation.

Petitioner knows first hand that this is an

issue of great public significance because it involves

depriving the rights of a large number of persons; it

seems well deserving of an exercise of this Court’s

discretionary powers. All citizens have a stake in the

courts upholding the Constitution, Rodriguez v.

Robbins, 715 F3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013). The

American people cannot afford for the other 49 states

8

to pull a page out of CDCR’s playbook, assuming

they too can operate under the color of impunity.

Now, turning to a figurative background:

Lancaster’s guards complained to facility operation

managers that inmates were frequently assaulting

them. Turns out that out of 5 such incidents, 4 in­

mates sustained serious injuries and 1 officer.

Considering all those 5 incidents happened during a

period of 90 days at the enhanced outpatient

program/Coleman class member, E.O.P. facility.

The length of confinement can’t be ignored when

determining the constitutionality of the confinement,

Hutto v. Finney 57 Led 2d 522, 538 (1978). Two

separate 30-day lockdowns ensued within 90 days.

The responsible party, the respondent, was

competent at the time of this arrogant decision; he

thereby acted with knowledge that a prolonged

lockdown was unnecessary—avaunt, clearly

unlawful. Were the lockdowns enacted solely for the

staffs benefit?

Disparate treatment: The prison at CSP-Los

Angeles put out a memo six months earlier

documenting a series of events where their discretion

urged activation of a lockdown. The Warden’s

description of the need was no different than the

ones in question here. That lockdown was two weeks

before this author arrived at LA County’s only

penitentiary on May 18th, 2017. A memo, called a

“PSR” (Program Status Report) is suppose to be

distributed to inmates and staff weekly during a

lockdown. That lockdown lasted a little over a week.

The CSC was shown three memos side by side; the

9

other two were the only ones inmates received from i

the late 2017 lockdown. If there was substantial

evidence for imposing the lockdowns, it was not

shared with the inmates per their regulations. This

begs the question, “why suddenly the exaggerated

response to similar circumstances?”

The prison officials may respond to that

question if forced, rendering anything besides

confessed error. ., folderol. It is axiomatic that

lockdowns, in some cases serve a legitimate

penological interest. In contrast, here there’s no

rational connection between Lancaster’s would-be

explained version and the objectively unreasonable

lockdown duration. The action itself, selected by the

Department cannot withstand Constitutional

scrutiny from the “Reasonableness Standard”.

Judges from the ninth appellate circuit treated

a case in 2003 entitled—Walker v. Gomez, 370 F.3d

969 where multiple officer involved incidents and/or

disturbances happened; (3rd incident at Calipatria’s

B-Facility. A gang member stabbed a staff member.

Programming resumed 12 days later) (id. at 972).

Violence involving prison employees usually causes

somewhat longer lockdowns than that, but 30 days

on an E.O.P. yard is unheard of.

Denial of outdoor exercise constituted cruel

and unusual punishment according to Spain v.

Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199-200 (9th Cir. 1979) as

quoted by Norwood v. Vance, 572 F.3d 626, 630

(9th Cir. 2008) (THOMAS, J. dissenting).

10

The CDCR’s decision to confine 600 inmates

for the mistakes of a few, over the dreadful course of

9 weeks arguably gives rise to the appearance of

retaliatory animis—a charge alleged thousands of

times over by American prisoners. While CDCR’s

need for this procedure has long since gone

unexplained . ., petitioner here remembers that

many verifiable suicide attempts took place at the

time. "... lockdowns further impeded the effective

delivery of care,” citing Brown v. Plata (2011) 179

L.Ed. 2d 967, 493 U.S. at pg. 978. The severity of the

condition during lockdown also matters. In Palmer

v. Richards, 364 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2004) the court held

that aggravated conditions for 77 days could be

‘atypical and significant’. Overly suspicious

respondents steadfastly maintain their highly

questionable position: Prisoner Inhumanity is none

of petitioner’s business.

California’s unapologetic course of action

continues to elude justice and may be a prelude to

influencing its 49 sister states to adopt similar cruel

customs, without any concern for procedural due

process. Petitioner argues that as well, the

‘important questions’ test/the first headnote from

Wolff v. McDonnell 418 U.S. (1974) 539, 542 applies

to the unsupervised Warden’s decision to turn his

whole E.O.P. yard into a dark, dank dungeon severe

enough to meet the “significant and atypical”

standard. The lockdown conditions of confinement

were much worse than what is normal for prisoners.

These rights guaranteed by Wolff still apply under

Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293,132,

L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).

11

The duties of a prison during lockdown include

(1) investigation, (2) weapons search and (3) time to

permit a highly charged situation to cool down. This

happened at Lancaster after 10 days. Unfortunately,

the sub-culture behind the mindset used by

California when it decided to violate (Cal Penal Code

§ 236), the personal liberties of very many inmates,

remains active in its effect. In the corrections

regulation manual, CCR Title 15 Div. 3, it is

absolutely silent as to the operation of lockdowns.

CDCR’s regulatory authority does not contain

anything substantial to guide official decision

making; apparently that invited the afore noted

arbitrary application. Arbitrary lockdowns are akin

to false imprisonment except for some dire

emergency.

Oportet quad certa res deducatur in judicium.

CONCLUSION

The levels of this sort of massive tortious

activity were amplified on the behalf of CDCR

officials; petitioner would prefer to not presume that

this bad faith confidence was built upon the CSC’s

numerous, previous and favorably written decisions

in support of California’s corrections department. All

of Lancaster’s D-facility staff profited ob vitae

solatium; keeping watch over fully confined inmates

requires much less concentrated effort.

12

<

CSC could have upheld the reasonableness

standard and still utilized summary procedures also

if—but only if—done so to petitioner’s reprieve, [cf.

Turner v. Safley (1987), 482 U.S. 78, 87-92], It would

have been preferable for all parties that this cause of

action have its resolve quietly; there’s no joy in un­

veiling the conflicting goals of the state. A workable,

less restrictive alternative could have been forged

without compromising essential facility security

factors.

Ironically for a system that paroles so com­

paratively few lifers using “lack of insight” as its

misrepresented rational. ., the CDCR’s own

questionable insight cannot progress itself until its

own High Court unleashes many attention

demanding rulings, effectively outlawing many of

their underground policing tactics. However, at this

rate, petitioner remains dubious with hopes this is a

reasonable expectation. Nonetheless, this Court can

teach California a valuable lesson in a positive

manner, were it to determine petitioner’s controversy

as re viewable. Finally, petitioner prays his relevium

through a grant of Certiorari ex merito justitiae:

ratio est radius divini luminis.

13

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

WITH RULE 14

Petitioner here made every effort to comply

with the standards and restrictions governing

content, according to the Supreme Court Rule 14.

To the best of petitioner’s knowledge, this motion for

rehearing is both formally and procedurally correct.

Petitioner believes that the contents of the above

document will show this motion is presented in good

faith, as it is a fact that petitioner and other

similarly situated EOP prisoners are in need of relief

and that it is certainly not for the purpose of delay.

VERIFICATION

I am the petitioner in this action. All of the

alleged facts are true to the best of my knowledge

and beliefs. This document was written in good faith

and with respect to the penalty of perjury. Both of

the above Dated: 07/ 21 /2019

Respectfully submitted,

Robert R. Snyder,

Petitioner in Pro Se