Gonzalez v. Grounds
Filing
11
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/23/12. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
*E-Filed 8/24/12*
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11
MICHAEL ANTHONY GONZALEZ,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
No. C 11-3597 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,
Respondent.
/
16
INTRODUCTION
17
18
Petitioner seeks to have a prison disciplinary decision adjudged unconstitutional and
19
the decision expunged from his prison file. Respondent moves to dismiss on grounds that the
20
action is moot. For the reasons stated herein, respondent’s motion is GRANTED, and the
21
action is DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION
22
23
The following facts are undisputed. Petitioner is a state prisoner serving a 33-year
24
determinate sentence. He will be released on parole after he has served his 33-year sentence,
25
unless it is reduced by good time credits. Petitioner lost 30 days of good time credit in July
26
2009 owing to a prison disciplinary decision. These 30 days were restored to him after a
27
period of good behavior.
28
No. C 11-3597 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
1
Respondent asserts that the petition should be dismissed as moot because there is no
2
relief the Court can grant. First, the length of his sentence remains unchanged, the credits
3
having been restored. So, a finding that the disciplinary hearing was constitutionally
4
erroneous will not affect the duration of petitioner’s confinement. Second, his disciplinary
5
record is irrelevant to his chances of being paroled as he is not subject to parole until he has
6
served his 33-year sentence. So, a finding in petitioner’s favor would not affect his parole
7
eligibility.
8
Petitioner, however, claims that there will be collateral consequences arising from
9
having this disciplinary decision in his prisoner file. He alleges that the CDCR’s current
10
effort to reduce California’s prison population makes his disciplinary record significant to his
11
chances of early release. Petitioner asserts that “California has passed numerous statutes
12
which will reduce the amount of time a prisoner under a determinate term of commitment
13
will have to serve.” His record, then, will have “a significant impact on the determination of
14
the CDCR whether [p]etitioner will qualify” for a reduction in the time he will serve.
15
The law and the facts do not support petitioner’s claims. The presumption of
16
collateral consequences that is applied to criminal convictions does not extend to prison
17
disciplinary proceedings. Wilson v. Terhune, 319 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2003). A prisoner
18
seeking to challenge prison disciplinary proceedings in habeas must demonstrate that
19
continuing collateral consequences exist if the punishment imposed as a result of the
20
disciplinary action has expired. See id. Allegations that a rules violation finding will affect
21
classification, institutional and housing assignments, privileges, and may result in a delay or
22
denial of parole, involve discretionary decisions too speculative to constitute sufficient proof
23
of collateral consequences. See id. at 481–82. Petitioner’s allegation that his sentence might
24
be reduced pursuant to laws he fails to name (or to show that he qualifies for relief under
25
such laws) is too speculative to constitute proof of collateral consequences.
26
27
28
2
No. C 11-3597 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
1
An action becomes moot when “it no longer present[s] a case or controversy under
2
Article III, § 2, of the Constitution.” Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). In order to
3
satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement, the parties must have a personal stake in the
4
outcome of the suit throughout “all stages of federal judicial proceedings.” United States v.
5
Verdin, 243 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2001). A habeas petition challenges the validity or
6
length of confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Because there is no
7
relief this Court can give that would affect the validity or length of his confinement,
8
petitioner has no personal stake in the outcome of this suit, which is therefore moot.
9
Accordingly, the action will be dismissed.
10
CONCLUSION
11
Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 8) is GRANTED, and the action is
12
hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 8, enter judgment in favor of
13
respondent, and close the file.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
DATED: August 23, 2012
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
No. C 11-3597 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
