Nettles v. Grounds
| Decision Date | 26 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 12-16935,12-16935 |
| Citation | 830 F.3d 922 |
| Parties | Damous D. Nettles, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Randy Grounds, Warden, Respondent–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John P. Balazs (argued), Sacramento, California; Monica Knox, Assistant Federal Defender; Heather Williams, Federal Defender; Office of the Federal Defender, Sacramento, California; for Petitioner–Appellant.
Phillip J. Lindsay (argued), Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Jennifer A. Neill, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California; Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California; for Respondent–Appellee.
Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge and William A. Fletcher, Marsha S. Berzon, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Richard R. Clifton, Consuelo M. Callahan, Sandra S. Ikuta, N. Randy Smith, Mary H. Murguia, Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.
;
OPINION
IKUTA
, Circuit Judge:
Damous Nettles, a prisoner serving a life sentence in California prison, appeals the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. The petition challenged a disciplinary violation on constitutional grounds and claimed that the failure to expunge this violation from his record could affect his eligibility for parole. We conclude that because Nettles's claim does not fall within the “core of habeas corpus,” Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 487, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973)
, it must be brought, if at all, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In 1990, Nettles was convicted in California of attempted first degree murder with the use of a firearm and other offenses. The victim was a woman who had filed a complaint against Nettles's brother. In order to prevent her from testifying, Nettles took the victim down an alley, ordered her onto her hands and knees, and told her Nettles then shot her twice in the left ear and left her in the alley. The victim did not die, but was seriously injured and disfigured.
Nettles was convicted for attempted murder and dissuading and conspiring to dissuade a witness from attending or giving testimony at trial. He was sentenced to prison for a determinate term of twelve years and a life term with the possibility of parole.
Under California law, prisoners with life terms like Nettles may not be released before their minimum eligible parole date (MEPD). Cal. Penal Code § 3041(a)(4)
. One year before a prisoner's MEPD, a panel of the Board of Parole Hearings will meet with the prisoner and determine if the prisoner is suitable for parole. Id. § 3041(a)(2). “[A] life prisoner shall be found unsuitable for and denied parole if in the judgment of the panel the prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2281(a). In determining the prisoner's suitability for parole, the panel must consider “all relevant” information, id. § 2281(b), including disciplinary actions received during imprisonment. If the prisoner is suitable for parole and has reached the MEPD, the prisoner is entitled to release. Cal. Penal Code § 3041(a).1 If the panel determines that the prisoner is unsuitable for parole, the Board of Parole Hearings will schedule a future hearing that could take place from three to fifteen years after the previous hearing, as directed by statutory criteria. Id. § 3041.5(b)(3). Once every three years, an inmate may request the board to exercise its discretion to accelerate the next hearing. Id. § 3041.5(d).
An initial parole consideration hearing for Nettles was held in 2004 after the presiding parole commissioner determined that Nettles' MEPD was October 19, 2005. Before that hearing, prison staff had issued some thirty-nine rules violations reports to Nettles. These reports are issued for misconduct that “is believed to be a violation of law or is not minor in nature.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3312(a)(3)
. Nettles also received numerous citations for lesser types of misconduct. See
id. § 3312(a)(2). At Nettles's initial parole hearing in 2004, the Board of Prison Terms (now the Board of Parole Hearings, or Board)2 deemed Nettles to be unsuitable for parole. It scheduled the next parole suitability hearing for 2006, but the date was postponed several times.
After 2004, Nettles received seven additional rules violations reports. On February 26, 2008, staff issued Nettles a rules violation report for threatening to stab a corrections officer. After an investigation of the incident and a hearing, Nettles was found guilty and given a four-month term in the segregated housing unit. He also lost thirty days of postconviction credit.
On July 30, 2009, the Board convened a second parole suitability hearing for Nettles. At the hearing, the presiding commissioner first described the facts of Nettles's crime of conviction, characterizing it as “one of the most atrocious and cruel acts I've read” and stating that Nettles's motive was “ridiculously heinous.” The commissioner then reviewed Nettles's prior criminal history. Nettles had a long string of convictions beginning at age seventeen and had been in and out of prison for offenses including possession of drugs, assault with a deadly weapon, battery on a peace officer, and robbery. Nettles was on parole for the robbery conviction when he committed the attempted murder for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The commissioner stated that Nettles's lengthy criminal history illustrated his inability to learn from prior incarcerations.
The commissioner next explained the hearing panel's concerns about Nettles's mental state and attitude about the crime. In the hearing panel's view, Nettles's letter to the victim did not express true remorse. Further, Nettles had not taken responsibility for his conduct and lacked insight that would enable him to change his behavior. The commissioner discussed a May 2007 psychological report, which gave Nettles “a rating of overall moderate likelihood to become involved in a violent offense if released.” Finally, the commissioner stated that Nettles was argumentative and stubborn, “challenge[d] authority at every given opportunity,” and refused to restrain himself, as evidenced by his numerous rules violations. The commissioner noted the forty-six rules violation reports that had been issued to Nettles while he was in prison. Nettles “continued to display negative behavior while incarcerated,” and as a result was placed in segregated housing. Moreover, Nettles had not taken any significant steps to gain skills to function outside of prison. Nevertheless, a deputy commissioner noted some positive steps Nettles had taken, including a slight reduction in the number of rules violations reports issued to Nettles in recent years.
The panel of the Board of Parole Hearings concluded that Nettles was unsuitable for parole because he “still pose[d] an unreasonable risk of danger if released from prison.” This finding was “based on weighing the considerations provided in the California Code of Regulations.” As authorized by the regulations, the commissioner made recommendations regarding “what steps may be undertaken to enhance the possibility of a grant of parole at a future hearing,” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 2304
, telling Nettles that “[f]or next time, you certainly need to become and remain disciplinary free.”
On January 23, 2009, Nettles filed a habeas petition in the state trial court claiming, in relevant part, that the 2008 rules violation report was illegal and that the disciplinary proceedings held in connection with the 2008 rules violation report violated his due process rights. The court denied the petition, concluding that Nettles failed to exhaust his administrative remedies concerning these claims.3 The California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court then summarily denied the petition.
On June 10, 2011, Nettles filed a habeas petition in federal court seeking expungement of the February 26, 2008 rules violation report and “restoration of good time,” presumably referring to the loss of thirty days of postconviction credits as a result of the 2008 disciplinary decision. After being ordered to respond, the state moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition because the 2008 disciplinary decision did not impact the fact or duration of Nettles's confinement and so was not cognizable in habeas. Nettles opposed the motion, arguing that the disciplinary decision impacted the duration of his confinement because it delayed his parole hearing and constituted grounds for future denial of parole.
The district court dismissed Nettles's petition, holding that he could not show that expungement of the 2008 rules violation report was likely to accelerate his eligibility for parole. Nettles timely appealed the district court's decision.
We review de novo a district court's decision to deny a petition for habeas corpus. Bailey v. Hill , 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir.2010)
. We also review de novo a district court's determination that it does not have jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition. Id.
The Supreme Court has recognized that “[f]ederal law opens two main avenues to relief on complaints related to imprisonment: a petition for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254
, and a complaint under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 ... 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Muhammad v. Close , 540 U.S. 749, 750, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 158 L.Ed.2d 32 (2004) (per curiam). “Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.” Id. (internal citation omitted). The Court has long held that habeas is the exclusive vehicle for claims brought by state prisoners that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McPherson v. Lamont
...of habeas corpus" and holding that "conditions-of-confinement claims are not cognizable in habeas proceedings"); Nettles v. Grounds , 830 F.3d 922, 933–34 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that conditions-of-confinement claims fall outside "the core of habeas corpus" and thus must instead be brou......
-
Hernandez v. Lewis
...in order to provide the State an opportunity to correct the constitutional violation found by the court.")); see also Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016). "[C]onditional orders are essentially accommodations accorded to the state, in that conditional writs enable habeas co......
-
Hernandez v. Lewis
...in order to provide the State an opportunity to correct the constitutional violation found by the court.")); see also Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 930 (9th Cir. 2016). "[C]onditional orders are essentially accommodations accorded to the state, in that conditional writs enable habeas co......
-
Aslanturk v. Hott
...that claims challenging the conditions of confinement cannot be brought in a habeas petition." Id. (comparing Nettles v. Grounds , 830 F.3d 922, 933–34 (9th Cir. 2016) (adopting the view post- Preiser that conditions-of-confinement claims, which fall outside "the core of habeas corpus," mus......
-
PROTECTING THE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANT DETAINEES: USING COVID-19 TO CREATE A NEW ANALOGY.
...v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 839, 841 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 468 (8th Cir. 2014) (same); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931 n.6 (9th Cir. 2016) (same); Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2012) (same); Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124, 11......
-
A Felicitous Meme: the Eleventh Circuit Solves the Preiser Puzzle?
...the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."). 21. 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016).22. Id. at 945 (Berzon, J., dissenting).23. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1996).24. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2013).25. Nettles, 830 F.3d at ......