8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 MARCOS ANTONIO GUTIERREZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-01509-EPG-HC
12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS
14 WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 15 Respondent.
16 17 Petitioner Marcos Antonio Gutierrez is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 On December 11, 2024, Petitioner commenced the instant matter by filing a petition for 22 writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.) On January 15, 2025, the Court screened the petition, found 23 that it failed to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, and granted Petitioner leave to 24 file an amended petition. (ECF No. 6.) On March 20, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant first 25 amended petition (“FAP”). (ECF No. 7.) 26 /// 27 /// /// 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 (“Habeas Rules”) require preliminary review 4 of a habeas petition and allow a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is 5 ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 6 the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 7 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 8 In the FAP, Petitioner challenges a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in a loss of good 9 time credits. (ECF No. 7 at 1.2) “The discipline process starts when staff witness or reasonably 10 believe that [the inmate] committed a prohibited act. A staff member will issue [the inmate] an 11 incident report describing the incident and the prohibited act(s) [the inmate is] charged with 12 committing.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a). After the inmate receives an incident report, a Federal 13 Bureau of Prisons (“BOP” or “Bureau”) staff member will investigate it. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(b). 14 “A Unit Discipline Committee (UDC)3 will review the incident report once the staff 15 investigation is complete.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7. The UDC cannot impose a sanction of good 16 conduct time credit loss and may refer the incident report to “the Discipline Hearing Officer 17 (DHO) for further review, based on the seriousness of the prohibited act(s) charged.” 28 C.F.R. 18 §§ 541.7(f), (a)(3). 19 When a prison disciplinary proceeding may result in the loss of good time credits, due 20 process requires that the prisoner receive: (1) advance written notice of the charges at least 21 twenty-four hours before a disciplinary hearing; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with 22 institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in 23 his defense; and (3) a written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied on and the 24
25 1 The Court may apply any or all of these rules to habeas corpus petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 26 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 2 Page numbers refer to ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. 27 3 “The UDC ordinarily consists of two or more staff. UDC members will not be victims, witnesses, investigators, or otherwise significantly involved in the incident.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(b). 1 reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–67 (1974); 2 Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1984). Inmates are entitled to an impartial 3 decisionmaker in a disciplinary proceeding. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570–71. Additionally, due 4 process requires that there be “some evidence” to support the disciplinary decision to revoke 5 good time credits. Hill, 472 U.S. at 454–55. 6 In Ground One, Petitioner asserts that he “was not given the proper proceeding” and 7 alleges that the “UDC was violated by Agent conducting the hearing alone” with “only the 8 officer [who] falsified the documents.” (ECF No. 7 at 2–3.) Neither the Supreme Court nor the 9 Ninth Circuit has held that adherence to the procedures established by a prison’s inmate 10 discipline program regulations is required to satisfy constitutional due process. The Due Process 11 Clause only requires that prisoners be afforded those procedures mandated by Wolff and its 12 progeny; it does not require that a prison comply with its own, more generous procedures. 13 Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1420 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. 14 Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1420 (“[I]f state procedures rise above the 15 floor set by the due process clause, a state could fail to follow its own procedures yet still 16 provide sufficient process to survive constitutional scrutiny.” (internal quotation marks omitted) 17 (quoting Rogers v. Okin, 738 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1984))). Here, any discrepancy with the 18 composition of the UDC did not violate due process because (1) the UDC proceeding was a 19 preliminary review that did not result in the loss of good time credits, and (2) adherence to 20 procedures established by prison regulations is not required to satisfy constitutional due process. 21 Therefore, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief in Ground One. 22 In Ground Two, Petitioner asserts that he was denied due process because “[e]ach [a]gent 23 signed to false documents in this matter.” (ECF No. 7 at 3.) Filing false allegations by itself does 24 not violate a prisoner’s constitutional rights so long as (1) the prisoner receives procedural due 25 process before there is a deprivation of liberty as a result of false allegations, and (2) the false 26 allegations are not in retaliation for the prisoner exercising constitutional rights. Harper v. Costa, 27 No. CIV S-07-2149 LKK DAD P, 2009 WL 1684599, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2009), aff’d, 1 were in retaliation for Petitioner exercising his constitutional rights. Therefore, Petitioner fails to 2 state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief in Ground Two. 3 In Ground Three, Petitioner asserts that he was denied the right to staff representation. 4 (ECF No. 7 at 4.) Wolff held that there is a due process right to assistance during disciplinary 5 proceedings only where an inmate is illiterate or “the complexity of the issue makes it unlikely 6 that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate 7 comprehension of the case.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570. The FAP does not allege that Petitioner is 8 illiterate or demonstrate that the issues in the disciplinary proceeding were unusually complex.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 MARCOS ANTONIO GUTIERREZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-01509-EPG-HC
12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. HABEAS CORPUS
14 WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 15 Respondent.
16 17 Petitioner Marcos Antonio Gutierrez is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 On December 11, 2024, Petitioner commenced the instant matter by filing a petition for 22 writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.) On January 15, 2025, the Court screened the petition, found 23 that it failed to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, and granted Petitioner leave to 24 file an amended petition. (ECF No. 6.) On March 20, 2025, Petitioner filed the instant first 25 amended petition (“FAP”). (ECF No. 7.) 26 /// 27 /// /// 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases1 (“Habeas Rules”) require preliminary review 4 of a habeas petition and allow a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is 5 ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 6 the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 7 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 8 In the FAP, Petitioner challenges a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in a loss of good 9 time credits. (ECF No. 7 at 1.2) “The discipline process starts when staff witness or reasonably 10 believe that [the inmate] committed a prohibited act. A staff member will issue [the inmate] an 11 incident report describing the incident and the prohibited act(s) [the inmate is] charged with 12 committing.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a). After the inmate receives an incident report, a Federal 13 Bureau of Prisons (“BOP” or “Bureau”) staff member will investigate it. 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(b). 14 “A Unit Discipline Committee (UDC)3 will review the incident report once the staff 15 investigation is complete.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7. The UDC cannot impose a sanction of good 16 conduct time credit loss and may refer the incident report to “the Discipline Hearing Officer 17 (DHO) for further review, based on the seriousness of the prohibited act(s) charged.” 28 C.F.R. 18 §§ 541.7(f), (a)(3). 19 When a prison disciplinary proceeding may result in the loss of good time credits, due 20 process requires that the prisoner receive: (1) advance written notice of the charges at least 21 twenty-four hours before a disciplinary hearing; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with 22 institutional safety and correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in 23 his defense; and (3) a written statement by the fact-finder of the evidence relied on and the 24
25 1 The Court may apply any or all of these rules to habeas corpus petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 26 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 2 Page numbers refer to ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. 27 3 “The UDC ordinarily consists of two or more staff. UDC members will not be victims, witnesses, investigators, or otherwise significantly involved in the incident.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.7(b). 1 reasons for the disciplinary action. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–67 (1974); 2 Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1984). Inmates are entitled to an impartial 3 decisionmaker in a disciplinary proceeding. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570–71. Additionally, due 4 process requires that there be “some evidence” to support the disciplinary decision to revoke 5 good time credits. Hill, 472 U.S. at 454–55. 6 In Ground One, Petitioner asserts that he “was not given the proper proceeding” and 7 alleges that the “UDC was violated by Agent conducting the hearing alone” with “only the 8 officer [who] falsified the documents.” (ECF No. 7 at 2–3.) Neither the Supreme Court nor the 9 Ninth Circuit has held that adherence to the procedures established by a prison’s inmate 10 discipline program regulations is required to satisfy constitutional due process. The Due Process 11 Clause only requires that prisoners be afforded those procedures mandated by Wolff and its 12 progeny; it does not require that a prison comply with its own, more generous procedures. 13 Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1420 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. 14 Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1420 (“[I]f state procedures rise above the 15 floor set by the due process clause, a state could fail to follow its own procedures yet still 16 provide sufficient process to survive constitutional scrutiny.” (internal quotation marks omitted) 17 (quoting Rogers v. Okin, 738 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 1984))). Here, any discrepancy with the 18 composition of the UDC did not violate due process because (1) the UDC proceeding was a 19 preliminary review that did not result in the loss of good time credits, and (2) adherence to 20 procedures established by prison regulations is not required to satisfy constitutional due process. 21 Therefore, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief in Ground One. 22 In Ground Two, Petitioner asserts that he was denied due process because “[e]ach [a]gent 23 signed to false documents in this matter.” (ECF No. 7 at 3.) Filing false allegations by itself does 24 not violate a prisoner’s constitutional rights so long as (1) the prisoner receives procedural due 25 process before there is a deprivation of liberty as a result of false allegations, and (2) the false 26 allegations are not in retaliation for the prisoner exercising constitutional rights. Harper v. Costa, 27 No. CIV S-07-2149 LKK DAD P, 2009 WL 1684599, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2009), aff’d, 1 were in retaliation for Petitioner exercising his constitutional rights. Therefore, Petitioner fails to 2 state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief in Ground Two. 3 In Ground Three, Petitioner asserts that he was denied the right to staff representation. 4 (ECF No. 7 at 4.) Wolff held that there is a due process right to assistance during disciplinary 5 proceedings only where an inmate is illiterate or “the complexity of the issue makes it unlikely 6 that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate 7 comprehension of the case.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 570. The FAP does not allege that Petitioner is 8 illiterate or demonstrate that the issues in the disciplinary proceeding were unusually complex. 9 Therefore, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief in Ground Three. 10 In Ground Four, Petitioner states that “[b]efore UDC and DHO inmate Marcos was 11 placed on Encumbrance. (See Encumbrance Notice).” (ECF No. 7 at 4.) Despite the notation, 12 there was no Encumbrance Notice attached to the FAP, and Petitioner does not provide any 13 factual allegations in support of this claim. 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the FAP fails to state a cognizable claim for 15 federal habeas relief. A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to 16 amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. 17 Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). The Court previously explained to Petitioner 18 the deficiencies in the petition, provided Petitioner with relevant legal standards, and provided 19 Petitioner an opportunity to amend the petition. Although Petitioner filed a FAP, the FAP is 20 largely identical to the original petition and suffers from the same deficiencies. Therefore, the 21 undersigned finds that further leave to amend would be futile. 22 III. 23 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 24 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the first amended petition 25 for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. 26 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 27 the present matter. 1 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 2 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 3 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 4 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 5 | written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and 6 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 7 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will 8 | then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are 9 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 10 | District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 11 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 14) Dated: _ April 22, 2025 hey 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28