Vasquez v. Macomber

Background

Rudy Vasquez, a California state prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence for second degree murder and attempted first degree murder, challenged a June 2022 prison disciplinary decision. The decision followed his refusal to move to a different housing unit and resulted in the loss of time credits and some privileges. His state-court efforts to overturn the decision were unsuccessful.

Vasquez’s federal petition alleged that the disciplinary finding violated due process and equal protection because his cellmate and a neighboring inmate also refused to move but were not found guilty. The opinion identifies the respondent as Jeff Macomber.

Rule and analysis

The court applied Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which permits summary dismissal when the petition and its exhibits plainly show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court explained that a prison disciplinary challenge is generally cognizable in habeas proceedings when restoring lost credits would necessarily lead to immediate or speedier release. But Vasquez was serving an indeterminate term, so overturning the disciplinary decision would not necessarily shorten his confinement. The possible effect of the disciplinary decision on parole also did not establish a habeas claim because parole depends on multiple factors, and the disciplinary decision neither requires denial nor guarantees approval of parole.

The court therefore concluded that Vasquez had not stated a cognizable due process claim or a cognizable equal protection claim. The court also addressed the equal protection claim in the alternative. It stated that Vasquez was not in a protected class and that there was a rational basis for the different disciplinary outcomes: his cellmate, Stewart, used a continuous positive airway pressure machine and was subject to different housing protocols, while Vasquez said he refused to move because he would not be able to complete parole-board paperwork in the proposed housing unit. The court said that, even if the claim were cognizable, the state court’s rejection of it was reasonable and would receive deference under the federal law governing review of state-court decisions.

Disposition

Judge William Orrick granted respondent’s motion to dismiss. The federal habeas action was dismissed. The court directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close the file.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the habeas petition for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim without granting habeas relief. The court also discussed the equal protection claim’s merits in the alternative, but the applicable motion-to-dismiss disposition remains procedural under the stated classification rules.