(HC) Ramirez v. Matteson ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT J. RAMIREZ, No. 2:23-cv-0162 DAD CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 GIGI MATTESON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the 19 possibility of parole for first degree murder. 20 In the petition, petitioner challenges the results of prisoner disciplinary proceedings. It 21 appears that petitioner was charged with possessing a cell phone. The punishment petitioner 22 received is not clear. Respondent moves to dismiss petitioner’s claim. 23 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is available only on the grounds that the petitioner is 24 in custody in violation of federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Essentially, a habeas petition must 25 challenge either the fact of or duration of confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 26 (1973). For the court to have jurisdiction over a habeas claim, success on the merits of the claim 27 must “necessarily lead to speedier or immediate release.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934- 28 935 (9th Cir. 2016). 1 Here, a successful challenge to the disciplinary proceedings at issue would not lead to a 2 speedier release because petitioner is serving life in prison and is not eligible for parole. In his 3 opposition, petitioner asserts that there are new laws which provide an opportunity for those 4 sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to petition a California court for resentencing, 5 and that the expungement of the disciplinary finding at issue would increase the chances that 6 petitioner’s sentence would be reduced at such a proceeding. Whether expungement would lead 7 to a lesser sentence is speculative, however, and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Nettles makes clear 8 that expungement must lead to a lesser sentence or there is no habeas jurisdiction. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 10 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) be granted; 11 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed; and 12 3. This case be closed. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner 18 may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of 19 the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district 20 court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 21 applicant). Where, as here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of 22 appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 23 debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of 24 reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 25 constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. 26 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Any response to the objections shall be served and filed 27 within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 28 ///// 1 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 2 || Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: October 12, 2023 Cad ) ft 4 by ae 4 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8] 1 9 rami0162.ntls 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28