1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD COKER, No. 1:25-cv-00224-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 WARDEN, USP-ATWATER, TO DENY PETITION 15 Respondent. [21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He filed the instant petition on February 20, 19 2025. Petitioner takes issue with a disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of 20 possessing a dangerous weapon in prison. Upon review of the pleadings, the Court will 21 recommend the petition be DENIED. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Incident Report1 24 On April 11, 2024, Correctional Officer A. Abdill conducted a random search of cell 223 25 occupied by Petitioner and his cellmate. During the search, Officer Abdill located a homemade 26 weapon – a plastic shiv approximately 6 inches in length - inside the pocket of a hanging jacket. 27 1 The facts are taken from the Incident Report dated April 11, 2024, and the Disciplinary Hearing Officer 28 Report dated April 26, 2024. (Doc. 6-1 at 28-31.) 1 The jacket was in a common area of the cell. 2 Petitioner was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon in violation of Code 104. 3 Petitioner denied the charge and claimed he did not know of the weapon. The DHO found 4 Petitioner guilty because the item was discovered in a common area of the cell, for which both 5 cellmates were responsible. He was sanctioned, inter alia, with a loss of 41 days of good conduct 6 time credits. 7 B. Due Process Rights in Prison Disciplinary Proceedings 8 Prisoners cannot be entirely deprived of their constitutional rights, but their rights may be 9 diminished by the needs and objectives of the institutional environment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 10 418 U.S. 539, 555 (1974). Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, 11 so a prisoner is not afforded the full panoply of rights in such proceedings. Id. at 556. Thus, a 12 prisoner’s due process rights are moderated by the “legitimate institutional needs” of a prison. 13 Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. 14 v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-455 (1984)). 15 When a prison disciplinary proceeding may result in the loss of good time credits, due 16 process requires that the prisoner receive: (1) advance written notice of at least 24 hours of the 17 disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional 18 goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written 19 statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. 20 Hill, 472 U.S. at 454; Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-567. In addition, due process requires that the 21 decision be supported by “some evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455 (citing United States ex rel. 22 Vatauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106 (1927)). 23 Petitioner does not contend he did not receive advanced written notice or that he was not 24 provided a written statement of reasons for the disciplinary action. He contends he was not 25 allowed to call a witness, his cellmate, who would have claimed ownership of the weapon. Two 26 separate hearings took place for Petitioner and his cellmate. Petitioner claims there was not some 27 evidence of guilt, because the hearing officer failed to call the cellmate and consider his statement 28 in which he purportedly would have claimed ownership of the weapon and asserted that Petitioner 1 had no knowledge of it. 2 Even considering what Petitioner’s cellmate allegedly would have stated, Petitioner fails 3 to demonstrate there was not at least “some evidence” to support the guilty finding. Petitioner was 4 found guilty based on “constructive possession.” See Lewis v. Ricolcol, 2024 WL 5410106, fn.2, 5 (C.D.Cal., Nov. 12, 2024), adopted, 2025 WL 487309 (C.D.Cal., Feb. 11, 2025) (stating “[e]ven 6 if Petitioner had called his cell mate as a witness to testify that the contraband was his and not 7 Petitioner’s, the evidence would not contradict the fact that Petitioner shared the cell where the 8 contraband was found such that there was sufficient evidence to establish that he was guilty of 9 joint and/or constructive possession of the contraband”) (citing Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 10 680 (8th Cir. 1990) (no due process violation where cell mate testified [petitioner was] not 11 responsible for the contraband found in shared locker and appellant was found guilty of 12 possession)). 13 Federal courts have held that the “some evidence” standard may be satisfied by 14 application of the constructive possession doctrine. See, e.g., Torres v. Langford, 2017 WL 15 5900063, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (finding “some evidence” standard met where weapon was 16 discovered on a window ledge in a room the petitioner shared with five inmates); Hamilton v. 17 O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 1992) (finding “some evidence” standard met where 18 weapons were found in a cell that housed the petitioner and three other inmates); Mason v. 19 Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir. 1990) (finding “some evidence” standard met where 20 contraband was found in locker shared by two inmates); Pettis v. Asuncion, 2017 WL 927626, at 21 *6–7 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (finding “some evidence” standard met where cell phone was found in 22 petitioner’s shared cell and his cell mate provided a declaration stating that petitioner did not 23 know about the phone); Harms v. Godinez, 829 F. Supp. 259, 262–63 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (finding 24 “some evidence” standard met where contraband was found in a wastebasket in a secure area in 25 the commissary, where petitioner and five other inmates were working). 26 Here, Petitioner does not dispute that a weapon was found in a common area of the cell. 27 Therefore, there was some evidence to support he “constructively possessed” this weapon. 28 Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that his due process rights were violated. Wolff, 418 1 U.S. at 564. The petition should be denied. 2 ORDER 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District 4 Judge to the case. 5 RECOMMENDATION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus 7 petition be DENIED. 8 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 10 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 11 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a 12 party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD COKER, No. 1:25-cv-00224-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 WARDEN, USP-ATWATER, TO DENY PETITION 15 Respondent. [21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He filed the instant petition on February 20, 19 2025. Petitioner takes issue with a disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of 20 possessing a dangerous weapon in prison. Upon review of the pleadings, the Court will 21 recommend the petition be DENIED. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Incident Report1 24 On April 11, 2024, Correctional Officer A. Abdill conducted a random search of cell 223 25 occupied by Petitioner and his cellmate. During the search, Officer Abdill located a homemade 26 weapon – a plastic shiv approximately 6 inches in length - inside the pocket of a hanging jacket. 27 1 The facts are taken from the Incident Report dated April 11, 2024, and the Disciplinary Hearing Officer 28 Report dated April 26, 2024. (Doc. 6-1 at 28-31.) 1 The jacket was in a common area of the cell. 2 Petitioner was charged with possession of a dangerous weapon in violation of Code 104. 3 Petitioner denied the charge and claimed he did not know of the weapon. The DHO found 4 Petitioner guilty because the item was discovered in a common area of the cell, for which both 5 cellmates were responsible. He was sanctioned, inter alia, with a loss of 41 days of good conduct 6 time credits. 7 B. Due Process Rights in Prison Disciplinary Proceedings 8 Prisoners cannot be entirely deprived of their constitutional rights, but their rights may be 9 diminished by the needs and objectives of the institutional environment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 10 418 U.S. 539, 555 (1974). Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, 11 so a prisoner is not afforded the full panoply of rights in such proceedings. Id. at 556. Thus, a 12 prisoner’s due process rights are moderated by the “legitimate institutional needs” of a prison. 13 Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. 14 v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-455 (1984)). 15 When a prison disciplinary proceeding may result in the loss of good time credits, due 16 process requires that the prisoner receive: (1) advance written notice of at least 24 hours of the 17 disciplinary charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional 18 goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written 19 statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. 20 Hill, 472 U.S. at 454; Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-567. In addition, due process requires that the 21 decision be supported by “some evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455 (citing United States ex rel. 22 Vatauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106 (1927)). 23 Petitioner does not contend he did not receive advanced written notice or that he was not 24 provided a written statement of reasons for the disciplinary action. He contends he was not 25 allowed to call a witness, his cellmate, who would have claimed ownership of the weapon. Two 26 separate hearings took place for Petitioner and his cellmate. Petitioner claims there was not some 27 evidence of guilt, because the hearing officer failed to call the cellmate and consider his statement 28 in which he purportedly would have claimed ownership of the weapon and asserted that Petitioner 1 had no knowledge of it. 2 Even considering what Petitioner’s cellmate allegedly would have stated, Petitioner fails 3 to demonstrate there was not at least “some evidence” to support the guilty finding. Petitioner was 4 found guilty based on “constructive possession.” See Lewis v. Ricolcol, 2024 WL 5410106, fn.2, 5 (C.D.Cal., Nov. 12, 2024), adopted, 2025 WL 487309 (C.D.Cal., Feb. 11, 2025) (stating “[e]ven 6 if Petitioner had called his cell mate as a witness to testify that the contraband was his and not 7 Petitioner’s, the evidence would not contradict the fact that Petitioner shared the cell where the 8 contraband was found such that there was sufficient evidence to establish that he was guilty of 9 joint and/or constructive possession of the contraband”) (citing Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 10 680 (8th Cir. 1990) (no due process violation where cell mate testified [petitioner was] not 11 responsible for the contraband found in shared locker and appellant was found guilty of 12 possession)). 13 Federal courts have held that the “some evidence” standard may be satisfied by 14 application of the constructive possession doctrine. See, e.g., Torres v. Langford, 2017 WL 15 5900063, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (finding “some evidence” standard met where weapon was 16 discovered on a window ledge in a room the petitioner shared with five inmates); Hamilton v. 17 O'Leary, 976 F.2d 341, 346 (7th Cir. 1992) (finding “some evidence” standard met where 18 weapons were found in a cell that housed the petitioner and three other inmates); Mason v. 19 Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 680 (8th Cir. 1990) (finding “some evidence” standard met where 20 contraband was found in locker shared by two inmates); Pettis v. Asuncion, 2017 WL 927626, at 21 *6–7 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (finding “some evidence” standard met where cell phone was found in 22 petitioner’s shared cell and his cell mate provided a declaration stating that petitioner did not 23 know about the phone); Harms v. Godinez, 829 F. Supp. 259, 262–63 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (finding 24 “some evidence” standard met where contraband was found in a wastebasket in a secure area in 25 the commissary, where petitioner and five other inmates were working). 26 Here, Petitioner does not dispute that a weapon was found in a common area of the cell. 27 Therefore, there was some evidence to support he “constructively possessed” this weapon. 28 Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that his due process rights were violated. Wolff, 418 1 U.S. at 564. The petition should be denied. 2 ORDER 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District 4 Judge to the case. 5 RECOMMENDATION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus 7 petition be DENIED. 8 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 10 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 11 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a 12 party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document 13 should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall 14 not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not 15 consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any 16 exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page 17 number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in 18 excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when 19 reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 20 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 21 of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This 22 recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of 23 Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 24 should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26
27 Dated: May 28, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28