(HC) Hatchett v. Clark ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CECIL JEROME HATCHETT, Case No. 2:20-cv-01544-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COURT DISMISS PETITION FOR 13 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AT SCREENING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 KEN CLARK, OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 Respondent. ECF Nos. 9 & 10 16 ORDER THAT CLERK’S OFFICE ASSIGN 17 CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 Petitioner Cecil Jerome Hatchett, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ 20 of habeas corpus. After his initial petition was dismissed with leave to amend on screening, ECF 21 No. 7, petitioner filed an amended petition and addendum, ECF Nos. 9 & 10. I find, after 22 screening the amended petition and addendum, that petitioner has not stated a cognizable habeas 23 claim. I recommend, for the reasons stated below, that the petition be dismissed. 24 The matter is before the court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 25 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to a habeas proceeding must examine the 26 petition and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 27 28 1 See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 2 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, it plainly appears that he is not entitled to relief. 3 Petitioner claims that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 4 (“CDCR”) incorrectly calculated his inmate classification score and assigned him to a higher 5 security installation than he deserved. ECF No. 10 at 1. He alleges that he was not released at the 6 expiration of his original sentence because, during his time at the high security installation, he 7 received two additional sentences—one in Sacramento County Superior Court and another in 8 Monterrey County Superior Court. Id. at 2. Petitioner argues that he would not have received 9 these additional sentences if CDCR had correctly calculated his classification score and placed 10 him in an institution that was not full of the “top violent offenders.” Id. at 1-2. 11 Separately in his addendum, petitioner references a “movie about a college football 12 athlete” who was falsely accused of rape. ECF No. 9 at 2. I find the content of the addendum 13 difficult to understand and to connect to the claims in the petition. Regardless, the addendum 14 does not alter the legal analysis. 15 Inmates have no due process right to a particular classification or prison assignment. See 16 Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d 1316, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Magistrate Burgess correctly 17 concluded that ‘a prisoner has no constitutional right to a particular classification status.’”); 18 Dobshinsky v. Pleasant Valley State Prison, 332 Fed. Appx. 428, 429 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The 19 district court properly determined that Dobshinsky’s allegations regarding his classification score 20 and resulting placement at a high security facility failed to state a constitutional claim because no 21 federal due process right is implicated by a prison’s classification and transfer decisions.”) 22 (unpublished). Thus, petitioner cannot challenge his convictions based on state officials’ 23 incorrect calculation of his classification score or prison assignment. The convictions at issue 24 here might still be challenged on other grounds, but that question is not presented in the petition. 25 It is therefore ORDERED that the clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a U.S. 26 District Court Judge who will review the foregoing findings and recommendations. 27 I RECOMMEND that the court dismiss the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 28 ECF No. 10, and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge 2 | presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 3 | Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days 4 | of service of the findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections to the 5 | findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document 6 | must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 7 | District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 8 | § 636(b)1)(C). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. ( ie - Dated: _ December 17, 2020 qe 12 JEREMY D. PETERSON B UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28