Jones v. Virga
| Decision Date | 03 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:12-cv-1138 LKK GGH P,2:12-cv-1138 LKK GGH P |
| Parties | RODNEY WAYNE JONES, Petitioner, v. TIM VIRGA, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary conviction of battery causing serious injury. He seeks federal habeas relief on the following grounds: (1) denial of the right to a fair and impartial disciplinary hearing; and (2) the disciplinary proceeding violated petitioner's due process and equal protection rights. Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable law, the undersigned will recommend that petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief be denied.
Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary guilty finding for battery causing serious injury1that resulted in 360 days of credit loss. (Pet. at 1.) Petitioner's version of the facts is as follows.On June 10, 2005, he was awakened from sleep by loud noises as his cell door was being pushed open. He asserts that prison staff at Calipatria State Prison sprayed him with pepper spray, and then "punched, struck with batons, handcuffed and removed [him] from his assigned cell whereupon petitioner was again repeatedly and maliciously abused, beaten, struck with batons and kicked...." Petitioner claims that as a result of this attack, he had to be transported to the emergency room where he underwent surgery for life-threatening injuries. (ECF No. 1 at 19.) His injuries included "four broken ribs, a punctured and collapsed lung, three severe scalp lacerations and multiple abrasions, bruising and swelling throughout petitioner's body." (Id. at 19-20.) Petitioner claims that staff officers, including Schommer, Ortiz, Zills, Wells and Flores committed perjury in testifying to their version of the events, as well as fabricated reports, documents, and evidence, which resulted in a criminal indictment that was later dismissed. (Id. at 21.)
In regard to petitioner's disciplinary hearing, held on February 13, 2009, he claims he collected declarations from inmates who observed the incident, but that the Senior Hearing Officer (SHO) deemed them irrelevant. (Id. at 22.) He claims he also provided a written statement, a list of witnesses, and a list of documentary evidence to be collected for the disciplinary hearing. Although petitioner was assigned an investigative employee, he claims that no investigation occurred and no assistance was provided to him. (Id. at 23.) He asserts that the fabricated reports by prison staff were used against petitioner at his disciplinary hearing to result in a guilty finding. (Id. at 24.)
In contrast, the Rules Violation Report states that during a nightly cell count, petitioner was ordered by officers to remove a sheet on the inside of the cell which obscured their view. When petitioner did not comply with the order, Officer Schommer put his left arm through the food port in order to remove the sheet, but petitioner grabbed his arm and pulled it toward the back of the cell, causing Officer Schommer to hit his face on the door. After numerous orders to petitioner to get down and break his hold on Schommer, the officers entered the cell and officers Ortiz and Torres used pepper spray on petitioner. Petitioner began to strike Schommer in the face with his fists, as well as after the officer fell to his knees. Petitioner then stopped, and officerswere able to handcuff him. While exiting with petitioner through the sally port, petitioner became combative, and was then put on the ground. Officer Schommer suffered abrasions, scratches, and a small laceration, which was later discovered to have been inflicted by a hand-made weapon discovered in petitioner's cell. (Res't's Ex. 1.)
Petitioner's grounds for relief are: (1) denial of his right to a fair and impartial disciplinary hearing; and (2) violation of his due process and equal protection rights in regard to the disciplinary process.
On July 24, 2013, petitioner filed a motion to expand the record which was denied without prejudice to the court's sua sponte reconsideration of this motion. (ECF No. 24.) After reviewing the substance of the petition, the court finds no reason to grant this motion. Pursuant to Cullen v. Pinholster, ______ U.S.______, ______, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398, 1400 (2011), federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) "is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits" and "evidence introduced in federal court has no bearing on" such review. Cullen applies to motions to expand the record. See Winston v. Neven, ______Fed. APX______, 2013 WL6154118 (9th Cir. 2013); Martin v. Uttecht, 2013 WL 5492529 (W.D. Wash. 2013); Friedman v. Palmer, 2013 WL 4501027 (D. Nev. 2013); Almeda v.McDonald, 2012 WL 2358658 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
The records submitted by petitioner include a portion of a deposition transcript of Officer Sandoval in a separate civil rights action refuting that Officer Bailey2 was present during the incident at issue; a court of appeals opinion in a second state court action validating petitioner's allegations that prison officials at Corcoran Prison destroyed his legal property related to the civil rights action in the Southern District of California; and a settlement agreement between petitioner and some of the officer defendants involved in the incident at issue in regard to his civil rights action for excessive force, in which he was paid $30,000 and agreed not to waive claims in thishabeas action.
Not only were the proffered records not before the state courts, as the evidence was not in existence, or simply not submitted, the relevance of these records is either non-existent, pertaining to alleged destruction of records having nothing to do with the instant action or the parties involved, or of questionable relevance as the documents have been presented without a context. In particular, the settlement agreement, as is typically the case, contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law. A settlement is precisely that, a document to bring resolution to a dispute without an admission of fault and without divulging information pertinent to the claims or defenses.3
These findings and recommendations determine on the present record that the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Nor was it an unreasonable determination of the facts. Therefore, the undersigned's prior decision denying petitioner's request to expand the record is affirmed.
The statutory limitations of federal courts' power to issue habeas corpus relief for persons in state custody is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The text of § 2254(d) states:
As a preliminary matter, the Supreme Court has recently held and reconfirmed "that § 2254(d) does not require a state court to give reasons before its decision can be deemed to have been 'adjudicated on the merits.'" Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 785 (2011). Rather, "when a federal claim has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief, it may be presumed that the state court adjudicated the claim on the merits in the absence of any indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary." Id. at 784-785, citing Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 265, 109 S. Ct. 1038 (1989) (). "The presumption may be overcome when there is reason to think some other explanation for the state court's decision is more likely." Id. at 785.
The Supreme Court has set forth the operative standard for federal habeas review of state court decisions under AEDPA as follows: "For purposes of § 2254(d)(1), 'an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application of federal law.'" Harrington, supra, 131 S. Ct. at 785, citing Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 410, 120 S. Ct. 1495 (2000). "A state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision." Id. at 786, citing Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664, 124 S. Ct. 2140 (2004).
Accordingly, "a habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or ... could have supported[] the state court's decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of this Court." Id. "Evaluating whether a rule application was unreasonable requires considering the rule's specificity. The more general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations.'" Id. Emphasizing the stringency of this standard, which "stops short of imposing a complete bar of federal court relitigation of claims already rejected in state court proceedings[,]" the Supreme Court has cautioned that "even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary...
To continue reading
Request your trial