Rodriguez v. Martinez
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — A “substantial showing” requires a demonstration that 1 “‘reasonable jurists wo
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered a Petition for a Certificate of Appealability (COA) following the Ninth Circuit's remand of a dismissed habeas corpus petition. The court denied the COA, finding that the petitioner's claims regarding a ten-day disciplinary segregation did not fall within the core of habeas corpus as they did not affect his release date.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Certificate of Appealability“Accordingly, Rodriguez’s claims do not fall within “the core of habeas corpus,” id. (citation omitted), and a COA is therefore DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for a COA in the context of a state prisoner's habeas petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a COA is required to appeal a district court's adverse decision. The Ninth Circuit has held that a COA is not required for claims that do not fall within the 'core' of habeas corpus, such as those challenging conditions of confinement or disciplinary proceedings that do not result in the loss of good-time credits or an extension of the sentence. Here, the order recites that the petitioner did not lose custody credits and the sanction was limited to ten days of segregation. Therefore, the claim does not challenge the fact or duration of confinement in a way that would lead to immediate or earlier release. The denial is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard for a COA and applies the specific factual finding (no loss of custody credits) to the legal rule from Nettles v. Grounds. The reasoning directly addresses why the claim is not within the core of habeas corpus, which is the correct legal framework for determining whether a COA is required for this type of claim. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning provided in the order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No.: 23-cv-2148-MMA (BLM)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE 13 v. OF APPEALABILITY 14 SHERIFF KELLEY MARTINEZ, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Pedro Rodriguez, a state prisoner, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this Court alleging he was deprived of his due process 20 and equal protection rights during a disciplinary hearing while he was incarcerated. See 21 Doc. No. 1. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition, which this Court granted. 22 See Doc. Nos. 15, 23. Rodriguez appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of 23 Appeals. Doc. No. 25. On July 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to this 24 Court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a Certificate of Appealability 25 (“COA”). See Doc. No. 27. 26 A COA will issue when the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial 27 of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (West 2019); Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 28 740, 742 (9th Cir. 2005). A “substantial showing” requires a demonstration that 1 “‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 2 debatable or wrong.’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Slack 3 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 4 Rodriguez’s Disciplinary Hearing Report shows he received ten days of 5 Disciplinary Segregation. See Doc. 22-2 at 6. According to the Policies and Procedures 6 Manual for the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Detention Services Bureau, an 7 inmate may be placed in disciplinary separation as a “major disciplinary sanction” for up 8 to ten days, during which he can be deprived of “module property items except bedding, 9 clothing, legal papers, . . . personal correspondence, and hygiene items.” See 10 https://apps.sdsheriff.net/ PublicDocs SB978/Detention%20Services%20Bureau/ 11 Detentions%20Policy%20and%20Procedure%20Sections/Section%20O%20-%20 12 RULES%20AND%20DISCIPLINE%20OF%20 INCARCERATED%20 13 PERSONS/o01.pdf.1 Petitioner did not lost any custody credits as a result of his 14 disciplinary hearing, and thus “success on [his] claims would not necessarily lead to [his] 15 immediate or earlier release from confinement . . . .” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 See https://apps.sdsheriff.net/PublicDocs/SB978/Detention%20Services%20Bureau/Detentions %20Policy%20and%20Procedure%20Sections/Section%20O%20- 23 %20RULES%20AND%20DISCIPLINE%20OF%20INCARCERATED%20PERSONS/o01.pdf. The Court takes judicial notice of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Detention Services Bureau, 24 Manual of Policies and Procedures. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 201(b) (“The court may judicially notice a fact 25 that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy 26 cannot reasonably be questioned.”); see, e.g., Westwood v. County of San Bernardino, No. EDCV 21- 00117 JGB (KKx), 2022 WL 1843222, at *5 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2022) (taking judicial notice of the 27 Operational Procedural Manual published by the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department Detention and Corrections Bureau). 28 1 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, Rodriguez’s claims do not fall within “the core of 2 habeas corpus,” id. (citation omitted), and a COA is therefore DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: July 2, 2024 5 6 Miku UU - (highs 7 United States Disret ndge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28