Nettles v. Grounds, No. 12-16935 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Petitioners Nettles and Santos appealed the district court's dismissal of their habeas petitions. At issue was the appropriate standard for determining whether a claim is cognizable under the federal habeas statute. Applying Skinner v. Switzer, the court concluded that a claim challenging prison disciplinary proceedings is cognizable in habeas only if it will “necessarily spell speedier release” from custody, meaning that the relief sought will either terminate custody, accelerate the future date of release from custody, or reduce the level of custody. To the extent the court's prior decisions held that a claim is cognizable in habeas if success on the claim is likely to, or has the mere potential to, affect the length of a petitioner’s confinement, they are overruled as irreconcilable with Skinner. In Nettle's case, the court held that his claim is not cognizable under the federal habeas statute because neither expungement of the 2008 rules violation report nor restoration of the lost good-time credits would necessarily accelerate the future date of his release from custody. In Santos's case, the remedy Santos seeks of expungement of the gang validation from his record and release to the general prison population, “can fairly be described as a quantum change in
the level of custody.” Further, success on his claim would result in his immediate release to the general prison population. Therefore, the court held that his claim that he has been subjected to greater restrictions of his liberty without due process of law is properly brought as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the district court erred in dismissing his petition.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of California state prisoner Damous Nettles’s habeas corpus petition seeking expungement of a prison rules violation report and restoration of thirty days of post-conviction credit; and reversed the district court’s dismissal of California state prisoner Matta Juan Santos’s habeas corpus petition claiming that the process by which the prison validated his gang involvement violated his due process rights and seeking release from his resulting confinement in the security housing unit. Applying Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011), the panel held that a claim challenging prison disciplinary proceedings is cognizable in habeas only if it will “necessarily spell speedier release” from custody, meaning that the relief sought will either terminate custody, accelerate the future date of release from custody, or reduce the level of NETTLES V. GROUNDS 3 custody; and that to the extent this court’s prior decisions held that a claim is cognizable in habeas if success on the claim is likely to, or has the mere potential to, affect the length of a petitioner’s confinement, they are overruled as irreconcilable with Skinner. The panel held that because neither the expungement of the rules violation report nor restoration of the lost good-time credits would necessarily accelerate the future date of Nettles’s release from custody, his claim is not cognizable under the habeas statute. The panel wrote that it remains bound by the determination in Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1989), that there is habeas jurisdiction over a claim that would result in release from disciplinary segregation to the general prison population. The panel therefore held that the district court erred in dismissing Santos’s petition that seeks a remedy – expungement of the gang validation and release from the security housing unit to the general population – that can fairly be described as a quantum change in the level of custody. The panel remanded for further proceedings on the merits of Santos’s claim. Judge Murguia concurred in part and dissented in part. She disagreed with the majority that a footnote of dicta in Skinner defines the scope of habeas jurisdiction and abrogates the decisions in Bostic (habeas jurisdiction is proper when a prisoner seeks expungement of a disciplinary finding if “expungement is likely to accelerate the prisoner’s eligibility for parole”), and Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2004) (habeas jurisdiction is proper when a prisoner’s challenge to parole procedures “could potentially affect the duration of . . . confinement”). She would reverse and 4 NETTLES V. GROUNDS remand in both cases because Santos and Nettles have each asserted a cognizable habeas claim under the law of this circuit.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 20, 2016.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 26, 2016.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.