(HC) Proctor v. Warden, FCI Mendota

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DWAYNE ALONZO PROCTOR, Case No. 1:24-cv-01058 JLT EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK 14 WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 15 Respondent. (Doc. 6) 16 17 Dwayne Alonzo Proctor is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging disciplinary proceedings because 19 Petitioner was not provided the Disciplinary Hearing Officer’s Report within 15 workdays as 20 required under Bureau of Prison’s Program Statement § 541.8(h)(5). (Doc. 1 at 2, 6.) He asserts 21 that he did not receive a copy of the DHO Report until requested. (Id.) Petitioner requests that 22 the Court expunge his incident report “for violation of due process and not following the Program 23 Statement.” (Id. at 7.) 24 The magistrate judge performed a preliminary review of the petition. (Doc. 6.) The 25 magistrate judge observed that due process for prison disciplinary proceedings “requires that the 26 prisoner receive: (1) advance written notice of the charges at least twenty-four hours before a 27 disciplinary hearing; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional 28 goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written 1 statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.” 2 (Id. at 2, citing Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1984); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 3 539, 563-767 (1974).) The magistrate judge found Petitioner did not demonstrate a violation 4 constitutional due process, because the due process clause does not demand “a prison comply 5 with its own, more generous procedures.” (Id. at 3, citing Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1420 6 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).) Thus, 7 the magistrate judge determined that “adherence to timelines established by prison regulations is 8 not required to satisfy constitutional due process.” (Id.) The magistrate judge found “Petitioner 9 is not entitled to habeas relief,” and recommended “the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 10 dismissed for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim.” (Id., emphasis omitted.) 11 Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 8.) He 12 maintains that he suffered a violation of his due process rights because of “Agents violating laws 13 and Program Statements.” (Id. at 1.) He also indicates that “consent is denied,” suggesting that 14 he did not consent to the magistrate judge’s review of his petition. (Id.) Thus, Petitioner requests 15 the Court strike, or not adopt, the recommendations from the magistrate judge. (Id.) 16 Petitioner’s consent was not required for the magistrate judge to perform a preliminary 17 review of the petition, or to issue findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 18 Petitioner also does not dispute the finding that he received the due process required by Wolff and 19 its progeny. Instead, Petitioner maintains his right to due process was violated by the failure to 20 provide a copy of the DHO Report within the timeframe specified in BOP Program Statement § 21 541.8(h)(5). However, as the magistrate judge determined, such a failure to comply with the BOP 22 Program Statements—which are “internal agency guidelines”— is insufficient to support a 23 constitutional violation of a right to due process. See Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th 24 Cir. 2011) (“A habeas claim cannot be sustained based solely upon the BOP’s purported violation 25 of its own program statement because noncompliance with a BOP program statement is not a 26 violation of federal law”). Thus, Petitioner cannot state a cognizable claim for habeas relief 27 premised upon the alleged failure to comply with the deadline imposed by BOP Program 28 Statement § 514.8(h)(5). 1 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of the case. 2 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes the 3 | Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the 4 | Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated September 18, 2024 (Doc. 6) are 6 ADOPTED in full. 7 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. 8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: _ October 18, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28