(HC) Thompson v. Lynch ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEWAYNE THOMPSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00611-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 13 v. 14 JEFF LYNCH, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a disciplinary proceeding. A hearing on the petition 19 was scheduled for November 20, 2024. (ECF No. 10.) However, due to a lockdown of 20 Petitioner’s facility, the hearing was not held. (ECF No. 11.) 21 In his first claim for relief, Petitioner asserts that he was deprived of due process when he 22 was denied access to exculpatory video evidence to use in his defense. (ECF No. 1 at 21.1) The 23 state courts denied relief. “The Supreme Court established in Wolff v. McDonnell that there are 24 procedural due process rights that a prisoner must be afforded in the context of a prison 25 disciplinary proceeding prior to being deprived of a protected liberty interest.” Melnik v. 26 Dzurenda, 14 F.4th 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555–72 27 enn nee een on oo nnn inn een: ne ne nn I I EI ED 1 | (1974)). The Supreme Court was “of the opinion that the inmate facing disciplinary proceedings 2 | should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when 3 | permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional 4 | goals.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566. 5 In lieu of rescheduling a hearing, the Court finds that supplemental briefing would assist 6 | the Court in this matter. Specifically, the parties should address whether the state courts’ denial 7 | of Petitioner’s first claim for relief (denial of access to exculpatory video evidence) was contrary 8 | to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.” 9 Additionally, Respondent should inform the Court whether the video evidence at issue 10 | still exists. 11 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 12 1. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file a 13 supplemental brief, no longer than five (5) pages, addressing the issues set forth above; 14 and 15 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of Respondent’s brief, Petitioner may file 16 a response, no longer than five (5) pages, to Respondent’s brief. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19| Dated: _ November 20, 2024 [sf hey — 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 |? In the answer, Respondent states that “there was no video evidence depicting the act that constituted a violation of prison rules—the waste of Sergeant Barrios’ time during his investigation of Thompson’s 25 | patently false allegation,” and thus, “it was not an unreasonable determination of the facts to conclude that the hearing officer . . . properly denied a request for unavailable video evidence.” (ECF No. 8 at 7.) The 26 | Court finds this interpretation of Petitioner’s claim to be illogical. As should be clear from the factual background of this case, Petitioner was not requesting video of the waste of Sergeant Barrios’ time during 27 | his investigation. Rather, Petitioner was requesting video footage of the earlier interaction that would show whether custody staff reached through the food port or touched Petitioner, and thus, whether 28 | Petitioner was lying and caused Barrios undue work.