(HC) Franks v. Rios, No. 1:2009cv00176 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Denied and that Clerk of Court be Directed to Enter Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/27/2009. Referred to Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. Objections to F&R due by 9/30/2009. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Franks v. Rios Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KYLE FRANKS, 11 Petitioner, 12 v. 13 14 H. A. RIOS, Warden, 15 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:09-CV-00176 LJO GSA HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 16 17 18 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 19 20 Petitioner is currently in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons at the Federal 21 Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina. At the time the instant petition was filed, he was housed 22 at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California. 23 With this petition, Petitioner does not challenge his underlying conviction and sentence. 24 Rather, he challenges a prison disciplinary hearing held on November 9, 2007, in which he was 25 found guilty of possessing a weapon and fighting another inmate. Petitioner was assessed a loss of 26 35-days of good conduct time, 90-days in disciplinary segregation, and 150 days loss of telephone 27 1 28 This information is derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Respondent’s answer to the petition, and the exhibits in support of Respondent’s answer. U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and commissary privileges. Petitioner claims there is no evidence to support the guilty finding. 2 3 Respondent filed an answer to the petition on July 13, 2009. Petitioner has not filed a traverse. 4 FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 5 On November 9, 2007, a disciplinary hearing was held with respect to charges that on 6 October 14, 2007, Petitioner had been involved in a fight and had possessed a weapon. Petitioner 7 was advised of his rights and stated he understood them. The incident report had been previously 8 provided to him. Petitioner did not request a staff representative or witnesses. He provided a two- 9 page written statement for consideration by the hearing officer. In his statement, Petitioner alleged he 10 was the victim of an assault by the other inmate. He also stated he did not remember possessing a 11 pencil, and he had been rendered unconscious due to the assault by the other inmate. Nevertheless, 12 Petitioner had previously admitted that he had been involved in the altercation, and he had also 13 admitted to striking the other inmate with a pencil causing the pencil to pierce the other’s shoulder. 14 Based on the admission, injuries, and video surveillance, the hearing officer found Petitioner guilty 15 of the charges. 16 17 DISCUSSION I. Jurisdiction 18 Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 extends to a 19 person in federal custody if the custody is “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 20 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 (2000). Petitioner 21 asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Petitioner was 22 in custody at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, California, which is located within the 23 jurisdiction of this Court, at the time the petition was filed; therefore, this Court is the proper venue. 24 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). If a constitutional violation has resulted in the loss of time credits, such 25 violation affects the duration of a sentence, and the violation may be remedied by way of a petition 26 for writ of habeas corpus. Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874, 876-78 (9th Cir. 1990). Thus, this Court 27 28 2 This information is derived from the exhibits in support of Respondent’s answer. U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 2 1 has subject matter jurisdiction. 2 II. Standard of Review 3 Prisoners cannot be entirely deprived of their constitutional rights, but their rights may be 4 diminished by the needs and objectives of the institutional environment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 5 U.S. 539, 555 (1974). Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, so a 6 prisoner is not afforded the full panoply of rights in such proceedings. Id. at 556. Thus, a prisoner’s 7 due process rights are moderated by the “legitimate institutional needs” of a prison. Bostic v. 8 Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989), citing Superintendent, etc. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454- 9 455 (1984). 10 When a prison disciplinary proceeding may result in the loss of good time credits, due 11 process requires that the prisoner receive: (1) advance written notice of at least 24 hours of the 12 disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional 13 goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement 14 by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Hill, 472 U.S. 15 at 454; Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-567. In addition, due process requires that the decision be supported 16 by “some evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, citing United States ex rel. Vatauer v. Commissioner of 17 Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106 (1927) 18 In this case, it is clear Petitioner’s due process rights were met. He was given advance written 19 notice of the charges. He was given an opportunity to call witnesses, but he chose not to do so. He 20 was also given an opportunity to present evidence in his defense. He offered a written statement that 21 was considered by the hearing officer. The hearing officer also considered the injuries sustained by 22 the parties and the video surveillance of the incident. Petitioner attempts to challenge the video 23 surveillance evidence; however, he failed to do so at the hearing. Additionally, Petitioner was given 24 a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the guilty finding. 25 Finally, there was at least some evidence from which to conclude Petitioner committed the 26 charged offenses. Petitioner had admitted to the altercation and to striking the other inmate with a 27 pencil. There were also injury assessment reports and video surveillance of the incident. Photographs 28 and staff memoranda were also reviewed. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the hearing U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 3 1 officer found Petitioner guilty of the offenses. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that there was not 2 “some evidence” from which to conclude he committed the offenses. 3 4 In sum, all due process requirements were satisfied. The petition is without merit and should be denied. 5 RECOMMENDATION 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus 7 be DENIED. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter 8 judgment. 9 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge, pursuant to 10 the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after being served with the 11 Findings and Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a 12 copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's 13 Findings and Recommendation." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten 14 days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 15 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 16 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: 6i0kij August 27, 2009 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U .S. D istrict C ourt E. D . C alifornia cd 4
]]>
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.
