(HC) Taylor v. Yates, No. 1:2009cv01876 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending to DISMISS State Law Claims and to Require a Response with Respect to Petitioner's Due Process Claim 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/13/2010, Referred to Judge Wanger. Objections to F&R due by 8/16/2010.(Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Taylor v. Yates Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARK JAMES TAYLOR, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 11 Petitioner, 12 13 14 15 v. JAMES A. YATES, Respondent. 16 1:09-cv—01876-OWW-SKO-HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS STATE LAW CLAIMS AND TO REQUIRE A RESPONSE WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS CLAIM (DOC. 1) OBJECTIONS DEADLINE: THIRTY (30) DAYS 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local 21 Rules 302 and 304. Pending before the Court is the petition, 22 which was filed on October 26, 2009. 23 I. Screening the Petition 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United 25 States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make 26 a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. 27 The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 2 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....” 3 Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 4 1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 5 1990). 6 grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts 7 supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. 8 Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must 9 state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all 10 error. 11 O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. 12 Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)). 13 that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to 14 summary dismissal. 15 Cir. 1990). 16 Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 adoption; Allegations in a petition Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas 17 corpus either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to 18 the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the 19 petition has been filed. 20 8, 1976 adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 21 (9th Cir. 2001). Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 22 II. 23 Petitioner, an inmate of Pleasant Valley State Prison, The Petition 24 challenges a disciplinary finding made in March 2008 that 25 Petitioner failed to comply with count procedures in violation of 26 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3017, which provides, “Inmates must be 27 present at designated times and places for counts, and must 28 present themselves for count in the manner set forth in 2 1 institution procedures.” 2 thirty (30) days of credit for the offense. 3 1) he is innocent of the violation because of insufficient 4 evidence of the prohibited conduct and of wilfulness; 2) the 5 offense of failure to comply with count procedures was not an 6 offense, was not a lesser included offense of the originally 7 charged violation of delaying a peace officer while performing 8 his duties, and was not a serious rules violation; 3) Cal. Code. 9 Regs. tit. 15, § 3017 grants excessive discretion and results in (Pet. 7, 37, 19.) Petitioner forfeited Petitioner alleges 10 false charges of violations and wrongful convictions; and 4) 11 Petitioner thereby suffered a violation of due process guaranteed 12 under both the state constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of 13 the United States Constitution. 14 III. 15 16 (Pet. 7-16.) Claims Involving Only State Law A. Legal Standards Federal habeas relief is available to state prisoners only 17 to correct violations of the United States Constitution, federal 18 laws, or treaties of the United States. 19 Federal habeas relief is not available to retry a state issue 20 that does not rise to the level of a federal constitutional 21 violation. 22 Alleged errors in the application of state law are not cognizable 23 in federal habeas corpus. 24 Cir. 2002) (a claim challenging state court’s discretionary 25 decision concerning application of state sentencing law presented 26 only state law issues and was not cognizable in a proceeding 27 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 28 1389 (9th Cir. 1996). 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Souch v. Schiavo, 289 F.3d 616 (9th The Court accepts a state court's 3 1 interpretation of state law. 2 1389 (9th Cir. 1996). 3 is bound by the California Supreme Court’s interpretation of 4 California law unless it is determined that the interpretation is 5 untenable or a veiled attempt to avoid review of federal 6 questions. 7 2001). 8 9 Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, In a habeas corpus proceeding, this Court Murtishaw v. Woodford, 255 F.3d 926, 964 (9th Cir. B. Analysis of Petitioner’s Claims Issues two through three raised by Petitioner involve the 10 interpretation and application of the state statutory and 11 regulatory law that created and calibrated the disciplinary rules 12 violations. 13 a violation of due process based upon the state constitution, the 14 issue is purely one of state law. 15 cognizable in a proceeding pursuant to § 2254. 16 must be dismissed. To the extent that Petitioner in claim four alleges These claims are not Therefore, they 17 However, claims one and four, when liberally read, allege a 18 cognizable claim of a violation of due process of law because of 19 the absence of some evidence to support a finding of a violation 20 of the pertinent disciplinary rules. 21 cognizable in a § 2254 proceeding. Thus, these claims are 22 IV. 23 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that: 24 1) Petitioner’s claims concerning the interpretation of the Recommendation 25 offense of failure to comply with count procedures, its status as 26 a serious rules violation or as a lesser included offense of the 27 originally charged violation, the extent of discretion entrusted 28 in prison officials under Cal. Code. Regs. tit. 15, § 3017, and 4 1 any violation of due process of law premised solely on the state 2 constitution be DIMISSED because they are not cognizable in a 3 proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and 4 2) Insofar as Petitioner claims a violation of due process 5 of law because of the absence of some evidence to support a 6 finding of a violation of the pertinent disciplinary rules, the 7 Respondent should be ordered to file a response to the petition. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the 9 United States District Court Judge assigned to the case, pursuant 10 to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of 11 the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 12 Eastern District of California. 13 being served with a copy, any party may file written objections 14 with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. 15 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 16 and Recommendations.” 17 and filed within fourteen (14) days (plus three (3) days if 18 served by mail) after service of the objections. 19 then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 636 (b)(1)(C). 21 objections within the specified time may waive the right to 22 appeal the District Court’s order. 23 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Within thirty (30) days after Such a document Replies to the objections shall be served The Court will The parties are advised that failure to file Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: ie14hj July 13, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 5
]]>
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.
